Skip to main content

Full text of "Annual report"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 

• > » "" fc . 







I • 




AaiERiCAN Historical Association 


THE YE^R 1898 

-» ♦ » 




Ameeican Historical Association, 

Washington, J). 6\, April 18, 1899. 

SiB: I have the honor to transmit herewith a general report 
of the proceedings of the American Historical Association at 
their foarteenth annual meeting, held in New Haven, Conn., 
December 28-30, 1898. Some of the papers there read and 
discussed have been elsewhere printed. For example, the 
rei)ort of the committee of seven on ''The study of history in 
schools" was accepted for publication by the Macmillan Com- 
pany, though this is included in the present report as a matter 
of great importance. Prof. George F. Burr's report on "The 
search for the Venezuela-Guiana Boundary" was printed in the 
American Historical Review, April, 1899; so also was Prof. 
William M. Sloane's article on " Napoleon's plans for French 
colonies in Spanish America." Other papers that were actually 
read and some that were presented by title are herewith 
submitted, together with the third report of the Historical 
Manuscripts Commission. Among things done by the Asso- 
ciation at their New Haven meeting were: (1) The adoption 
of the American Historical Review, a quarterly magazine, now 
published by the Macmillan Company, and now sent free of 
charge to all members of the Association; (2) the appointment 
of a commission of five for the historical study of colonies and 
dependencies; (3) the institution of a general committee to 
represent the local and State historical interests of the Asso- 
ciation; (4) an agreement to hold annual meetings in triennial 
huccession in the East, West, and District of Columbia. 

Herbert B. Adams, 


Mr. S. P. Langley, 

Secretary of the Smithtfonian Iruititution, 



Organized at Saratoga, N. Y., September 10, 1884. 
OmiT'iCKRS inoR 180©. 

Boston, Mass. 

Vice-Presidents : 


New York City. 

ProfeBBor, Cornell University. 

Secretary : 


ProfeseoTy Johns Hopkins University, Baltimaref Md, 

Assistant Secretary and Curator : 


Custodian of Section of American History, Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, D. C. 

Treasurer : 


ISO Fulton street, Neto York City. 

Secretary Church Historv Section : 


69g West End avenue, New York City. 

Executive Council : 

(In addition to the above-named officers), 

Hon. ANDREW D. WHITE, L. H. D., LL. D., 

Ithaca, N. Y. 

President of the University of Wisconsin. 

Richmond, Va. 

President of the University of Michigan. 

Washington, D. C. 

Worcester, Mass. 


Brooklyn, N. Y. | 


Boston, Mass. 



ProfwBor, y'ale UniverHty. 

ProfesBor, Cornell rniversity. 

ProfesBor, University of IVisconBin, 

ProfeBBOTj Harvard UnirerHty, 

Chief Justice of the United StaieB, Washingionf />. C 

ProfesBOrf Yale University, 

A. c. McLaughlin, a. m., 

Professor, University of Michigan. 


I. Report of Prooeedings of Foarteenth Annual Meeting in 
New Haven, Conn., December 28-30, 1898, by Herbert B. 

Adams, Secretary 1 

II. Report of the Treasurer. Listof Committees and Officers.. 9 

III. Inaugural Address by Pr^. G. P. Fisher, President of the 

Association, on the Function of the Historian as a Judge 

of Historic Persons , 13 

IV. The Historical Manuscripts in the Library of Congress, by 

Herbert Friedenwald 35 

v. American Colonial History (1690-1750), by C. M. Andrews.. 47 

VI. Study of American Colonial history, by H. L. Osgood Gl 

VII. A Forgotten Danger to the New England Colonies, by Frank 

Strong *- 77 

VIII. An Examination of Peters's " Blue Laws," by W. F. Prince . . 95 

IX. The Connecticut Gore Land Company, by Albert C. Bates.. 139 
X. The Society of Separatists of Zoar, Ohio, by George B. 

Landis 163 

XI. Southern Economic History: Tariff and Public Lands, by 

J.C.Ballagh 221 

XII. Diplomatic Relations of the Confederate States with Eng- 
land (1861-1865), by J. M. Callalianf. 265 

XIII. A merican Diplomacy, by Edwin A. Grosvenor 285 

XIV. Lessons from the Recent History of European Dependencies, 

by Henry E. Bourne 301 

XV. The Constitutional Questions Incident to the Acquisition 
and Government by the United States of Island Terri- 
tories, by Simeon £. Baldwin 313 

XVI. Germans in America, by Ernest Bruncken ^ 345 

XVII. The Real Origin of the Swiss Republic, by William D. 

. McCraokan 355 

XVIII. Erasmus, the Prince of the Humanists, by George Norcross . . 363^ 
XIX. The Cambridge School of History, by Mary R. W. Stubbert. . 381 
XX. Municipal Government in the Twelfth Century, by John M. 

Vincent 413 

XXI. The Study of History in Schools. Report of the Committee 

of Seven to the American Historical Association 427 

XXII. Historical Manuscripts Commission. Third Report 565 

HIST 98—11 IX 


Nbw Haven, Connrctici;t, Dkckmrer 28-30, 1898. 

HIST 98 1 


By Herbert B. Adams, Secretary. 

The New Haven meeting of this national historical society 
was the most successfal in its history. Daring the three days' 
convention, December 28-30, the morning and evening ses- 
sions were attended by large and enthusiastic audiences. An 
attractive series of interesting historical papers and reports 
was provided by the programme committee, of which Prof. E. 
G. Boarne, of Yale University, was the chairman. The local 
committee of arrangements did all that was possible for the 
entertainment and pleasure of the visiting members of the 
American Historical and American Economic associations. 
As occasionally in former years, so now these two kindred 
societies met at the same time, in the same city. 

The opening meeting of the Economic Association was held 
Tuesday evening, December 27, in the beautiful and spacious 
hall of the New Haven Colony Historical Society. After a 
cordial welcome from President Dwight, on behalf of the soci- 
ety, the city, and the university, and after the inaugural ad- 
dress by Prof. Arthur T. Hadley, the visiting members of both 
associations were pleasantly received by Professor and Mrs. 
Henry W. Farnam at their house on Hillhouse avenue. After 
Professor Fisher's Inaugural address Wednesday evening, at 
the opening of the Historical convention in Colonial Hall, both 
associations were received by the Historical Society in their 
lower rooms, which are nobly furnished with historical memo- 
rials of New Haven Colony and with portraits of its famous 
men. Not even Pilgrim Hall in old Plymouth could afford a 
richer or more suggestive environment for historical meetings, 
social and literary, than does the Colonial Hall in New Haven. 

> Report of the New Haven meeting, by Dr. J. F. Jameson, waa published iu the Amer- 
ican Historical JReviow, April, 1899. Prof. A. B. Hart contributed to Book Keviews 
(Ifacmillan Sl Co.) for February, 1899, an accoant of the growth and purposes of the Amer- 
ican Historical Association. 



The literary feature of the fourteenth annual meeting of the 
American Historical Association was President Fisher's ad- 
dress. He avoided burning questions of the day, and spoke 
of the historian, not as a politician, an economist, or a sociolo- 
gist, but as a judge of the personal characteristics and merits 
of men and Women who have participated in the world's great 
drama. This chosen tield afforded a rare opportunity for a 
wide and fascinating review of human character as illustrated 
in human deeds which form the substance, the very life of his- 
tory. Professor Fisher qnoted the late Professor Gurney, of 
Harvard University, who, when offered at Cambridge one of 
two college departments, history or philosophy, chose the first 
because, as he said, he preferred intercourse with persons to a 
life spent amid abstrar.tions. Even for the sake of divine phi- 
losophy, of which he was extremely fond, he could not part 
company with the men and women whom history calls back 
to life. 

The educational feature of the programme was, beyond all 
question, the report of Prof. A. 0. McLaughlin, chairman of 
the committee of seven on the study of history in secondary 
schools. This committee was appointed two years ago by the 
association and has labored hard to solve the vexed problem 
of college entrance requirements in history, and to promote 
historical study in all secondary schools, a far more compre- 
hensive and important matter. After careful inquiries in this 
country and in the schools of England, France, and Germany, 
the committee has practically completed its report, and it will 
piobably be published in the spring. Professor McLaughlin 
discussed the educational value of history and its place in the 
curriculum, the proposed division of history into four blocks, 
each requiring one year of school work: (1) Ancient, including 
(very briefly) Oriental history and the early medieval period 
down to 800 A. D. ; (2) later medieval and modern European 
history; (3) English history, including its continental and im- 
perial relations; (4) American history, supplemented by civil 
government. The report discusses in detail the methods of 
treating these four great divisions of human history, the best 
methods of instruction, and the training of teachers. It was 
shown that the primary aim of secondary schools is not prepa- 
ration for college, but preparation for life. Public schools are 
alrea<iy outrunning college requirements in history, and the 
time is soon coming when a knowledge of man's experience in 


civil society will need to be recognized at least on terms of 
equality with the classics and mathematics. If colleges do 
not discern the signs of the times and the requirements of 
American citizens and civic leaders, so ninch the worse will it 
be for the colleges and their graduates. 

A pleasant feature of Thursday morning's session was the 
extempore address of the Eev. Dr. William Cunningham, of 
Trinity College, Cambridge, England, an eminent authority 
on English social and economic history. He said it would be 
impossible anywhere in England to gather such an assemblage 
of historians and economists, specialists and teachers, as he 
had seen in New Haven. And yet, he said, it ought to be 
easier in England than in America to awaken public interest 
in historical and economic matters. English teachers and stu- 
dents are surrounded by reminders of the past, and yet it is 
very difficult in England to quicken historical interest even in 
secondary schools. Questions regarding the present and the 
future seem to absorb English attention. Englishmen meet 
each difficulty as it arises. Dr. Cunningham commended the 
American spirit, which is manifestly becoming truly historical 
in its methods of dealing with great public questions. Amer- 
ica is a country most congenial to historians and very encour- 
aging to historico-economic pursuits. 

The treasurer's report was especially gratifying to the asso- 
ciation from an historico-economic point of view. It was shown 
that the present assets of the association are $11,539, an in- 
crease of about $1,500 during the past year. In fa/it, the good 
financial condition of the association has enabled it to under- 
take some very important functions. For example, the his- 
torical manuscript commission is now receiving an annual 
subsidy for the purpose of securing and copying for publica- 
tion original historical materials. Two special reports by this 
commission have already been published in connection with 
the annual report of the association. Prof. J. F. Jameson, 
chairman of the commission, outlined its future projects, espe- 
cially the plan of printing the letters of John C. Calhoun. 

The most important financial step taken at the New Haven 
meeting was the formal adoption of the American Historical 
Review, already for some years edited by Dr. Jameson and 
other members of the association. This step means an annual 
subsidy to the editors and publishers and the regular supply 
to every one of the twelve hundred members of the association 


of this handsome qaarterly magazine, the best organ of Amer- 
ican history and of history in America. 

There were various interesting papers and discassions on 
historical subjects: European, American, diplomatic, ecclesi- 
astical, colonial, institutional, and constitutional. Some of 
them are printed in this report. By general consensus, the 
New Haven meeting was the best on record. In fact, it was 
the pronounced success of an historical convention under the 
auspices of Yale University that decided the Executive Coun- 
cil to vote for Boston and Harvard University as the rallyixig 
points for the Association's numerous historical clans from 
Maine to California, in Christmas week, 1899. With this intent 
the association elected for its next president the eminent his- 
torian, James F. Khodes, LL.D., of Boston, and appointed as 
chairman of the programme committee Prof. A. B. Hart, of 
Cambridge. Prof. M. C. Tyler, of Cornell University, was 
chosen second vice-president. Prof. George B. Adams, of Yale, 
and Prof. A. C. McLaughlin, of Ann Arbor, were added to the 
Executive Council. This body also elected this worthy repre- 
sentative of the University of Michigan to the vacancy on the 
board of editors of The American Historical Eeview. Dr. 
Herbert Friedenwald, superintendent of the department of 
manuscripts in the Library of Congress, was added to the 
Manuscripts Commission of the Historical Association. 

By formal vote the Executive Council declared for the mani- 
fest policy of another meeting of the Association in the East, 
then in the West, at Detroit and Ann Arbor, in 1900, with a 
return in 1901 to Washington, where this national society was 
incorporated by act of Congress and made a Government 
institution in organic relations with the Smithsonian, to which 
it annually reports. 


(1) That an amount not to exceed $1,000 be appropriated by the Ameri- 
can Historical Assooiation to help defray the expenses of the American 
Historical Review from July 1, 1898, to January 1, 1899, with the under- 
standing that the October, 1898, and the January, 1899, numbers of the 
Review be sent to the members of the American Historical Association. 

(2) That Article IV of the constitution of the Amc^rican Historical 
Association be amended so that the Executive Council, in addition to tliA 
regular officers of the Association, shall include six other members elected 
by the Association with its ex-presidents, the number "six'' being sub- 
stituted for "four/' 


(3) The appointment of a Committee of Five on the award of the 
"Joatln Winsor Prize/' namely: Prof. F. J. Turner, University of Wis- 
consin ; Prof. H. L. Osgood, Colambia University ; Prof. C. M. Andrews, 
Bryn Mawr Colluge; Prof. E. P. Cheyney, University of Pennsylvania, 
and Prof. W. M. West, University of Minnesota. 

(4) The appointment of a Commission of Five on the Historical Stndy 
of Colonies and Dependencies: Prof. H. E. Bourne, Western Reserve 
University, chairman ; Prof. H. Morse Stephens, Cornell University ; Prof. 
George M. Wrong, Toronto University ; Prof. Bernard Moses, University 
of California, and P?of. F. Wells Williams, Yale University. 

(5) That the Association approves the general principles of the report 
on the Study of History in Secondary Schools as stated iu the report of 
the chairman, Prof. A. C. McLaughlin. 

(6) Authorization of a General Committee on the local and State histor- 
ical interests of the Association, the selection being intrusted to Profs. 
A. BT Hart and H. B. Adams. 

(7) Institution of a Bibliographical Committee to advise the Executive 
Council and to cooperate with the American Library Association upon 
matters of bibliographical interest: A. Howard Clark, assistant secretary 
of the American Historical Association; Reuben G. Thwaites, superin- 
tendent State Historical Society of Wisconsin ; William £. Foster, librarian 
Providence Public Library; J. N. Lamed, of Buffalo, N. Y., and George 
Dee, of New York City. 


(1) That the Committee of Seven shall be authorized to continue its 
functions and to make farther report at the next annual meeting of the 

(2) That the Committee of Seven have leave to add to its members if it 
deem necessary. 

(3) That the Committee of Seven have leave to report in detail to the 
committee of the National Educational Association. 

(4) That the council recommend to the Association to meet during the 
Christmas holidays, from Wednesday to Friday, in 1899 in Boston, in 1900 
in Detroit, in 1901 in Washington, D. C. 

(5) That after 1901 meetings should be held in the East, West, and 
Washington in triennial snccession. 


Ee$olved, That the American Historical Assoc iatipon desires to extend its 
thanks for the many courtesies which have so greatly enhanced the effect- 
iveness and enjoyment of its meeting in New Haven. 

The Association is grateful to the local committee, and especially to 
Profs. H. W. Famnm and E. G. Bourne, to whose labors in perfecting 
arrangements the success of the convention has been largely due. Special 
thanks are offered to the New Haven Colony Historical Society, to the 
Graduates' Club, to Prof, and Mrs. H. W. Farnnm, and to Prof. G. P. 
Fisher we are also indebted for the gracious hospitality. 

Dana C. Munro, Chairman. 
Henry E. Bourne. 



The following list enumerates the present leading activities of the Amer- 
ican Historical Association: 

(1) The annual meeting of the Association held during the Christmas 
holidays in the East or the West or the District of Columbia in triennial 

(2) The Annual Report of the Secretary of the Association concerning 
the annual meeting and its proceedings, with the papers, bibliographies, 
and other historical materials submitted through the Secretary of the 
Smithsonian Institution for publication by Congress. 

(3) The Historical Manuscripts Commission of Ave^members, established 
in 1895, and now receiving from the Association a subsidy of $500 a year 
for the collection and editing of important manuscripts. At present the 
commission is thus organized: Prof. J. F. Jameson, Hrown University, 
chairman; Prof. F. J. Turner, University of Wisconsin; Prof. William P. 
Trent, University of the South; James Bain, jr., Toronto Public Library; 
and Dr. Herbert Friedenwald, superintendent of manuscripts department, 
Ijibrary of Congress. 

(4) The preservation of historical exchanges, books, pamphlets, reports, 
and papers of the Association in the National Museum at Washington, 
D. C, in the keeping of Mr. A. Howard Clark, assistant secretary of the 
Association and curator of the historical collections. 

(5) The Committee of Seven, established in 1896, for promoting the 
Study of History in Secondary Schools. 

(6) A general committee, representing the local and State historical 
interests of the Association. This committee is being gradually ap])oint<'d 
by authority of the Executive Council. The list will be announced later. 

(7) The "Justin Winsor Prize" of $100 for the best unpublished mono- 
graphic work, Ijased upon original investigation in American history. 
This prize has been awarded only once, and then in the year 1896 to Prof. 
Herman V. Ames, a graduate of Amherst College and a doctor of philosphy 
of Harvard University. (For Committee on Award of Winsor Prize, see 
Votes of the Association.) 

(8) The Church History Section, which continues the work of the 
American Society of Church History, was originally an institutional ofl- 
shoot of the American Historical Association in 1888, but, in 1896, it 
became an organic part of the Association, with Dr. Samuel Macauley 
Jackson as secretary of the section. 

(9) A Commission of Five for the Historical Study of Colonies and 
Dependencies. This commission is organized as follows: Prof. H^nry E. 
Bourne, Western Reserve University, chairman; Prof. H. Morse Stephens, 
Cornell University ; Prof. George M. Wrong, Toronto University ; Prof. F. 
Wells Williams, Yale University; and Prof. Bernard Moses, University of 

(10) The American Historical Review, published quarterly, and now 
subsidized by the American Historical Association, whose Executive 
Council will henceforth fill yacaucies in the board of editors. 






1. Auditing commiUee: A. McFarland Davin and Reuben G. TbwaiteH. 

2. Finance: Hon. John A. Kiii^ and E. W. Blatchford. 

3. Xominaiionit : A. L. Lowell, H. (>. ThwaitoB, and Prof. W. P. Trent. 

4. Time and plac^ of next meeting: Executive council. 

5. Programme: Prof. A. H. Hart, Prof. \Vm. A. Dunning, Prof. C. H. Haskius, 

Prof. II. E. Bourne, Prof. H. B. Adams. 

6. liesoluiiona: Prof. H. £. Bourne and Prof. Dana C, Munroe. 

OFFICERS FOR 1898-99. 

Preeident: James Ford Rhodes, LL. D., Boston, Mass. 

Vice-Preaidenie: Edward Eggleston, New York City; MoHes Coit Tyler, 
L. H. D., LL. D., Cornell University. 

Secretary: Herbert B. Adams, Ph. D., LL. D., Johns Hopkins University. 

AesieUini secretary and curator: A. Howard Clark, Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington, D. C. 

Treasurer: Clarence W. Bowen, Ph. D., 130 Fulton street, New York City. 

Secretary of church history section: Samuel Macauley Jackson, D. 1)., LL.D., 
692 West End avenue, New York City. 

Executive council (in addition to the above-named offlcers) : Hon. Andrew 
D. White, L. H. D., LL. D.. Ithaca, N. Y. ; Charles Kendall Adams, 
LL. D., president University of Wisconsin; Hon. William Wirt 
Henry, LL. D., Richmond, Va. ; James B. Angell, LL. D., president 
University of Michigtin; Henry Adams, Washington, D. C; Hon. 
George F. Hoar, LL. 1)., Worcester, Mass. ; Richard 8. Storra, D. D., 
LL. 1)., Brooklyn, N. Y. ; James Schouler, LL. D., Boston, Mass. ; 
George P. Fisher, D. D., LL. D., Yale University ; Prof. H. Morse Ste- 
phens, Cornell University ; Prof. Frederick J. Turner, University of 
Wisconsin; Prof. Albert Bushnell Hart, Harvard University; Chief 
Justice Melville W. Fuller, Washington, D. C. ; Prof, (teorge B. 
Adams, Yale University; Prof. A. C. McLaughlin, University of 


By the President, GEORGE PARK FISHER, D. D., LL. D., 





By the President, Gkoroe Park Fisher, D. D., LL. D. 

At the oatset^ I wish to express my thanks to the Historical 
Association for the honor conferred on me by my election as 
its president. 

On casting about for a topic on which to address yon, my 
first impulse was to take up, in its historical relations, a ques- 
tion as to our national polity, which has arisen out of the 
recent war and its results. But on reflection it occurred to me 
that a respite of an hour from present controversies might not 
be unwelcome. Accordingly I have chosen a theme which I 
trust will not prove unattractive, albeit not connected with 
the ^'burning questions" of the day. 

My subject is, the historian as called to pass judgment on 
historical persons; in other words, the historian in his charac- 
ter as a judge of personal characteristics and merits. It will 
be agreed, at least not many will demur to the statement, that 
personal character and action constitute one of the principal 
charms of historical narratives. A scholar who was honored 
by all who knew him for his rare attainments coupled with 
genuine modesty — I refer to the late Professor Gurney of 
Cambridge — said to me that when he was offered at Harvard 
the choice between the departments of history and philosophy, 
he chose the chair of history, for the reason, as he explained, 
that he preferred the intercourse with persons to a life spent 
among abstractions. He was an adept in metaphysical studies, 
and held them in high esteem. But he could not make up his 
mind to sacrifice that delight which the converse with persons 
afibrds to the historical student. He was not willing to part 
company with the men and women whom history calls back to 
life. It is, indeed, an aspect of history which by some is 



regarded with a degree of disdain. Herbert Spencer some- 
w!iere adverts to the labor spent in the incjuiry whether Mary 
Queen of Scots was privy to the murder of Darnley, as an 
example or ^ waste of time on questions of trifling importance. 
That view would be just were it true that nothing in the past 
deserves attention except tlie growth of that impersonal being 
calle<l "society." To be sure, the progress of society, the rise 
and development of institutions, is a subject of prime interest. 
Biography is so far distinct from history that many details 
proper to the one have no place in the other. Moreover, it has 
become clear that individuals, however conspicuous, are, up to 
a limit, the ])roduct of their times. But there is a limit. It is 
likewise true that an initiative agency belongs to the leaders 
of men. It is an extreme theory that relegates them exclu- 
sively to the category of effects. Human beings are not au- 
tomatons. Especially are signal epochs in history, turning 
points, marked by a rallying about persons. From them goes 
forth a creative energy, inspiring and guiding their fellows. 
Let sociology, the philosophy of history, be rated at its full 
value. In the drama of human affairs there is an endless 
appeal to psychological curiosity, a constant stimulus to poetic 
feeling. And so even such a tragedy ad that in which Mary 
of Scotland bore a part will always enlist human sympathy, 
and impel to researches having for their object to solve the 
(]uestions in doubt. It is a dry-asdust theory that would 
drive out these in(iuiries from the domain of history. 

It is one of!ice of the historian to weigh in the scales of jus- 
tice the merits of historic persons. It belongs to him to gauge 
the qualities of the men and women who act their parts on the 
public stage. When Schiller wrote "Die Weltgeschichte ist 
das Weltgericht,"' all that the poet meant was that the hopes 
of the hereafter are of themselves an ade<iuate reward for one 
who repels the allurements of sense, even should these hopes 
turn out to be illusive. But the phrase of Schiller is an apt 
expression of another idea. It will serve to describe the oflice 
that history performs in calling to her bar the men whose 
career she passes in review. Surely it is a most responsible 
office. For do we not owe to the dead the same measure of 
justice that we owe to the living? Shall not the departed, if 
we speak of them at all, be righteously dealt with! 

' lu tliu poem, " KoHij;;nation." 


One thing fitted to remind a historian of his responsibility in 
assuming the office of a judge is a glance at the discordance ' 
among those who discharge this function — a conflict often so 
marked as to partake of a humorous element. An iil'stance or 
two, the first that occur to me, will illustrate this remark. 
Garlyle winds up his estimate of Oliver Cromwell in these 
words : 

A great light, oue of our few aathentic solar luminaries, going down 
now amid the cloads of death. Like the setting of a great victorious sum- 
mer sun; ita course now finished. * * * Here is a life battle nohly 
done. • • > Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord ; blessed are the 
valiant that have lived in the Lord.' 

Now hear how Clarendon closes his estimate of Cromwell: 

Id a word, as he had all the wickedness for which damnation is denounced 
and for which hell-fire is prepared, so he had some virtues which have 
caused the memory of some men in all ages to be celebrated ; and he will 
be looked upon by posterity as a brave, bad man.^ 

All know how this prophecy has been verified. One more 
example of contradictory verdicts. Mr. Froude, at the end of 
his account of King Henry YIII, while not denying that he 
had serious faults, assures us that ^^ far deeper blemishes would 
be but as scars upon the features of a sovereign who, in trying 
times, sustained nobly the honor of the English name,, and 
carried the Commonwealth securely through the hardest crisis 
in its history."^ The monarch whom the historian praises in 
this fashion is characterized by Macaulay as a '^ king whose 
character may be best described by saying that he was despo- 
tism itself personified;'' and contrast Mr. Froude's encomium 
with the words of Sir James Mackintosh, who, after relating 
the executions of More and Anne Boleyn, calmly observes: 

In these two direful deeds Henry approached, perhaps, a« near to the 
ideal standard of perfect wickedness as the infirmities of human nature 
will allow.^ 

We have nowadays two safeguards against the misjudgment 
of persons that give us an advantage over writers in the past. 
It is possible to find out a great deal more about historical per- 
sonages than it was formerly. The opening of archives with 
treasures of information which have been hitherto locked up, 

■ Cromwell 'a Letters and Speechea (Am. ed.), pp. 406, 409. 
* History of the KebellioD (ed. Macray), Vol. VI, p. 97. 
■History of England, Vol. IV, p. 492. 
*Ibid., Vol.11, O. VII. 

HIST 98 2 



the pablicatioii of letters and of documents of every sort in 
private bands, pour a flood of light in cases where only defect- 
ive knowledge was once possible. Along with this invaluable 
gain, the sense of obligation to spare no labor in efforts to get 
at the truth is proportionately increased. At present, no author 
with an ability approaching that of Hume would think of being 
deterred, as he was, by sheer indolence from rising from his 
chair to consult the authorities on his shelves, if not literally 
within reach. But of course no amount of investigation will 
answer if there be wanting a spirit of fairness. In this par- 
ticular we may take credit on the whole for a marked advance. 
Certainly the number of dispassionate students, who are in 
quest of truth alone, is larger now than it ever was before. 
Yet it is pleasant to remember that Thucydides, writing in so 
remote a time, is, in this respect as well as in so many others, 
a model. Grote maintains that he was in fault for not pre- 
venting Amphipolis from being captured by the Spartans. Ue 
argues that Thucydides was too slow in coming to its relief.* 
I once asked a profound scholar, the late President Woolsey, 
for his opinion on this question, lie answered, ^^ I have such 
confidence in the absolute truthfulness of Thucydides that, 
were he really chargeable with fault, as Grote alleges, I believe 
he would have avowed it." It is pleasant to read the more 
recent comment of Professor Jebb on this passage in the life 
of the prince of historians: 

There is some presumptive evidenoe of careleasneis ; bat we can hardly 
say more than that. The abBciice of Thucydides from the neighborhood 
of Amphipolis at the precise juncture may have had some better excuse 
than now appears.^ 

Let me now call to mind certain distinct influences of a mis- 
guiding nature, influences that may operate to deceive or per- 
vert the judgment of the historian. The first that it occurs to 
me to mention is the instinct of hero worship. Fascination, 
whether exerted by man or woman, carries in it a i)ower of 
illusion. It is liable to exaggerate merits and to hide defects 
and to invest the object admired with unreal charms. Great 
men, like grand objects in nature, excite the imagination. 
They thrill the spectator like the pyramids and majestic 
cathedrals reared by human art. ^^Ilero" is a word that 
meant, or came to mean, among the Greeks, a semidivine 

» History of Groeco (Am. od.), Vol. VI, p. 409, sq. 
'Eiicycl. Brit., Vol. XX III, p. 324. 


personage. Prometheus was a discrowned goil. Hercules, the 
typical hero of antiquity, was the sou of Zeus. When Pallas 
sent Diomed into battle, 

i< « n * upon his head 
And shield she caused a constant flame to play, 
Like to the aatumnal star, that ehines in heaven 
Most brightly when new bathed in ocean's tides/' 

— Iliad, b. V. 

There is a joy in unstinted admiration. It culminates in wor- 
ship. For what is worship but admiration rising almost to 
ecstacyf We yearn for the heroic, and we are ever, even if 
unconsciously, in quest of it. Hence the number of idols that 
we Americans frame and are obliged after a little to break. 
The genius of Carlyle is shown even in the title of his book. 
Hero Worship. The fault of his ideal of heroism, it is need- 
less to say, is its deifying of energy. It is greatness, in what- 
ever form, that Oarlyle adores. Not that he really means to 
approve of immorality. But with him energy and sincerity are 
made the two notes of the hero. The fetich worshiper, he tells 
us, 'Met him entirely believe in his fetich," is not in so bad a 
way. Oarlyle gathers into one category of heroes men of 
power in any province. His homage for literary genius leads 
him to convert Goethe into a hero — Goethe, who certainly was 
not a patriot, and used the same love sonnets for one after 
another of the women with whom for the time he was enam- 
ored. The hero, be he only sincere, is permitted to do what he 
pleases to accomplish his end. Of Mohammed's propagating 
his religion by the sword we read: 

I care little about the sword. I will allow a thing to struggle for 
itself in this world with any sword, or tongae, or implement it has or can 
lay hold of. We will let it do, beak and claws, whatever is in it. 

As if there were no other curb required for man, a being 
with a free and responsible nature, than for creatures armed 
with beak and claws, and with no motive force but instinct. 
In his greatest work, the masterly work on the French devo- 
lution, it is well that, as far as he carried the subject, he lighted 
on no hero to glorify. As to his Frederipk II, of Prussia, it 
may be too much to say that Carlyle had to manufacture his 
hero; but he had to assist what nature did, by a considerable 
strain of muscle. Great men not only cast a spell over their 
contemporaries; they continue to enchant generations that 
follow. They dazzle later comers who gaze back upon their 


career. They move these to believe what it gives them pleas- 
ure to believe. They disarm criticism. Alexander of M^ice- 
don, as a military genius, was praised by Hannibal, the only 
ancient commander who can be thought superior to him. That 
his intellect was keen no one will question. To be sure, he 
had Aristotle for a teacher, yet it was to his credit that he 
kept up an interest in Greek literature. But with what 
fabulous designs has he not been credited — the design, for 
example, to Hellenize Asia, when his aim was rather to Asia- 
tize Pjurope, and to make himself a despot after the Persian 
fashion, with the world under his feet. It takes a clear-sighted 
man and, if you will, an austere moralist, like Niebuhr, to 
characterize him as an adventurer — one who, in the spirit of 
a gambler, wantonly stakes his all on military success.* 
Napoleon, a far greater man than Alexander — how many 
writers has he captivated by the variety and energy of his 
intellectual powers! How have the enthusiasts ignored his 
unblushing mendacity, his petty tyranny within his court, his 
unmanly petulance, his heartless indifl'erence to the sacrifice 
of human life! It is a signal merit, permit me to say, of the 
monumental work of our associate, Professor Sloane, that he 
holds the scales of Justice with a steady hand. Ilis concluding 
summary is marked by discrimination in every line. 

But hero worship, however extravagant, is really less to be 
deprecated in the historian than the propensity to pull real 
heroes down from their pedestals. There is no greater good to 
a nation than to have at least one man who is Justly enshrined 
in popular veneration — one at.least whose name is in a certain 
way sacred. Such a name is that of Washington. Washing- 
ton was not an orator; yet John Adams records in his Diary 
at the Continental Congress that he had been told by Mr. 
Lynch, a delegate from South ('arolina, that Colonel Wash- 
ington made the most elotjuent speech at the Virginia conven- 
tion that ever was made. "Says he, *I will raise 1,000 men, 
equip them at my own expense, and march myself at their head 
to the relief of Boston.'^'" Even Jeff'erson, not i)rone to Hatter 
him, says that Washington was incapable of fear. High 
S{)irited, with a self-respect which no man ventured to invade, 
yet tempered with a Just respect for all others, and with a 
power of self-government never surpassed; welcoming coun- 
sels, yet never yielding to dictation, and never carried off* his 

'Nlcbiihr'n Locture>H on Anrient JliHtory, L«)«'t. LXXIV. 
*Llfe aiHl WorkH of John Adania, Vol. VII, p. 36U. 


feet by currents of opinion, be was a patriot without selfisb- 
ness and without guile. Wby search, when search is vain, for 
flaws in his character? I^ever was bis wisdom more apparent 
and, I venture to add, never did bis military capacity shine 
forth more brightly than at the present moment. Why seek 
for distinction by fumbling the noses of the godsf 

It is the glory of England that so many historic names in 
her annals are held, or will be, by the English people, in uni- 
versal honor. What a lesson to all coming time is the course 
of a man like Sir Robert Peel, of whom Wellington said, "Of 
all the men I ever knew, he had the greatest regard for truth." 
Twice in his career he braved the wrath of a disappointed and 
exasperated party — first, when he brought the Catholic disa- 
bilities bill into Parliament, and again, when he set about the 
repeal of the Corn laws. You remember his closing words, 
after he had done justice to the conscientious motives of a 
portion of his antagonists: 

I shall leave a name execrated by every monopolist who, from lens bou- 
orable motives, clamors for protection because it conduces to bis owu 
individual benefit; but it may be that I shall leave a name sometimes 
remembered Avitb expressions of good will in the abodes of those whose 
lot it is to labor, and to earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow, 
when they shall recruit their exhausted strength with abundant and 
untaxed food, the sweeter because it is no longer leavened with a sense of 

There is another influence that is not an unmixed advantage 
to an historical writer — a quality that, for the want of a better 
phrase, I will call the passion of eloquence. Khetorical fervor, 
as we all know, is liable to mislead the subject of it as well as 
others in contact with it. No eflFort is required to drive a met- 
tlesome steed furiously. When rhetoric is not artificial, but a 
gift of nature — in other words, when one is rhetorical to the 
core,- with a copious vocabulary at his command, with felicity 
in its use, and a spontaneous ardor to match, it is not easy to 
keep within bounds. Tbere is more than one sort of inability 
to bridle the tongue. There is a kind of declamatory think- 
ing. One of the numerous writers who have dwelt on the 
traits of Mr. Gladstone has hit the mark, I believe, in attribu- 
ting to him, as an ingrained quality, the passion of the orator. 
Eminent as his talents were and versatile his acquirements, 
there lay in this rare gift a anare. D'israeli's sarcasm, tliat 
he was inebriated by his own exuberant verbosity — an ungra- 
cious remark for a political rival to make — is clever as a cari- 
cature. Historical writers may be carried away by their own 


flaency. It is a pity for a painter to have on bis palette 
only two colors, white and black. How Macaalay delights 
to pelt the men whom he sets in his pillory ! How, for exam- 
ple, he inveighs against Graumer!^ One feels that he would 
twit St. Peter with the timidity that he showed in the judg- 
ment hall of Caiaphas. In truth, Cranmer was not a saint, 
but neither was he a hypocrite or a savage. In a few lines, 
Banke furnishes the key to his character — the source of his 
weakness and of his capacity for service along with it. With 
many excellent traits, he was one of those natures, not bad in 
themselves, that need a backing and lack the power to breast 
a masterfnl will. But after a retreat there was left in him 
always the mind to rally, and thus to save the cause to which 
in his inmost heart he was committed.^ Where the rhetorical 
turn of mind prevails, other tendencies, of course, may help to 
foster the spirit of exaggeration — a spirit that is apt to show 
in unbridled invective. There may be an almost savage intol- 
erance of tyi)es of character not conformed to the author's 
favorite type. I will refer for an illustration to the wholesale 
disparagement of Cicero now somewhat common, especially 
among the idolaters of Julius Civsar. Even Mommsen has set 
an example that writers of less distinction have not been slow 
to follow: "He was valiant," writes Mommsen, "in opposition 
to fiham attacks." " By nature he had the talent of a journalist 
in the worst sense of the term." lie is declared to be despi- 
cable as a statesman, and as an author to be nothing but a dex- 
terous stylist — with much more in the same vein.^ If I might 
venture to express my own feeling, I should say of this x)assage 
of Mommsen himself, that it illustrates t)ie manner of "a jour- 
nalist in the worst sense of the term." A far more fair and 
dispassionate view of Cicero is to be found in the pages of 
Ihne.* The foibles of Cicero are apparent enough, for he has 

I Review of Ilallam'n ConntitutionAl History (in Min(*«llaiiiMmfi KHsayn, Vol. I) ; Hiiitory 
of Knf^land, Vol. I, ]>. 48. 

' KnfrliftCbe (rcAohiohtc, Vol. I, p. 48. 

•History of Rome, Vol. V, Ch. XII. 

* (Jiron>, when thrtiatoned by CIocHuh, reniaineil at his post when ways of escape were 
ofipre<l to bim. SayH Ihn««: "How many n one of tht* valorous men who now Hit in judg- 
ment on Cicero and Iwrato him as a coward, a shuffler, would, in the same situation, have 
rn'pt into a comer whore he might think himself safe." (Romischo Geschichte, B. VI, 
s. 344.) Of the itorrow of Cicero in t'xile, Ihno writes: " The pains of this wounded heart, 
torn with grief, would fill a noble-hearted man, not with scorn and derision, but only with 
symjMithy ; for he who siitTered than was himaelf a noble-hearted, kindly man, om* of the 
few of iiin jieoplo possi'ssed of human feeling, removed from all hardne.HS, cruelty, and 
avarice." * • * "Tint we know that only one's own experience is the toucbatiine for 
these virtuen ( nuiterhuman strength of spirit and redolution], aad that many a Stoic of 
the Study at the first lightning stroke of misfortune breaks down." Ibid., s. 369. 


laid bare in his correspondence, as none of his contemporaries 
have done respecting themselves, his inmost thoughts and feel- 
ings. He has himself depicted his varying moods with the 
accuracy of a sun picture. It is from Cicero himself that we 
learn that he kex)t silence at sessions of the senate, lest, when 
it adjourned, Oaesar should dun him for borrowed money. Yet, 
when all is said that can be said, we always feel, as Niebuhr 
expresses it, that Cicero's failings are the faults of a friend. 
He' was a more modern man in the type of his culture than any 
other of the ancients. If he vacillated in the contests between 
C^sar and Pompey, it was for the reason given in his own letter 
to Atticus: '^It is the consideration of my duty that distracts 
me, and has from the beginning." He clung to the republic, 
yet feared that the success of its champion would be followed 
by a repetition of the cruelties of Sulla. Eichard Baxter said, 
in defense of himself, that when he remembered who it was 
that said, <^ Blessed are the peacemakers," he was willing to be 
called a trimmer. Cicero was bent on peace as long as the 
least hope remained that peace could be preserved. As for the 
inordinate hunger for fame, now and then there was one, like 
the great Stoic, Marcus Anrelius, who was not possessed with 
it. But the passion for. glory, and especially for posthumous 
fame — a passion checked in the Middle Ages by the influence 
of Christianity — ran to excess in the great men of antiquity. 
Boom, even in a brief catalogue of misleading influences, 
must be given to a special temptation — the delight in paradox. 
In traveling' over ground already trodden by numerous prede- 
cessors, the desire springs up to say something novel, an ambi- 
tion to exhibit an original view. Some fresh theory must be 
invented. This will explain often attempts to silver over char- 
acters doomed, and justly so, to infamy. Sensationalism is not 
a temptation of preachers alone. It invades our department 
as well as other provinces. We see the maxim verified that 
there is no one without a friend. A number of ingenious 
attempts have been made to vindicate the character of Judas 
Iscariot De Quiucy is one of those who have tried to show 
that the motive of Judas in the betrayal of his Master was to 
compel Him to a public and triumphant declaration of His 
Messiahship. These intrepid apologists are somewhat embar- 
rassed by the circumstance of the thirty pieces of silver, and 
by the statement in one of the documentary sources : ^< This he 
said, not because he cared for the x>oor, but because he had the 


bag and bare what was pat therein." The English Beforma- 
tion had long been pretty familiar ground. Its leaders were 
pretty well understood. Unless a revolutionary hypothesis 
could be started it was not so easy to captivate readers. I am 
loath to say that a deliberate motive of this sort actuated that 
master of the literary art, Mr. Fronde. It is, however, hard 
to account for the manner in which he has dealt with evidence, 
and hardly less for the inconsistencies in his narrative. Why 
are Thomas More and Cromwell praised to the foot of the scaf- 
fold and then put under the ban! Why are the English Prot- 
estant exiles, who went over to the continent in Mary's time, 
disparaged for obeying the injunction, "If ye are persecuted 
in one city flee into another," when Mr. Froude's hero, John 
Knox, likewise fled the country ! As regards Henry VIII, new 
evidence only corroborates the proofs already known.^ There 
is no ground for asserting that he. had any scruples about the 
validity of his marriage to Catharine before he was enamored 
of Anne Boleyn. His statement that scruples were awakened 
in his mind by the French ambassador was a falsehood. There 
is decisive proof that he had previously corrupted Anne's sister; 
that he proposed to Anne if she would yield to his seductions 
to renounce all other mistresses; that he had a mind, if the 
Pope would consent to bigamy, to marry her and say nothing 
about his previous marriage; that eleven weeks after his secret 
marriage to Anne he directed'the archbishop of his own crea- 
tion to decide the divorce question "without fear or favor;" 
that on the day when he heard of Catharine's death he crowned 
his brutality by putting on a gala dress, and that he sent Anne 
to the executioner with a like heartlessness. 

Where there is no ambition to shine as a discoverer, the 
historian may be under the influence of narrow or otherwise 
faulty ideals of personal worth. The hostile critics of Gibbon 
did not succeed very well in fishing for definite errors of state- 
ment in the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters, in which the 
great historian treated of early Christianity. In some par- 
ticulars he was incorrect, but his main fault lies in the way of 
putting things. That type of freethinking prevalent in his 
day — eighteenth century views of Christianity — leavened his 
habit of thought. The faults and foibles of Christian teach- 

iSoo Oairdner, **Xew lighU on tho divorce of Henry VIIT" (in English Historical 
Rftviow, Vol. XI, p. 073; Vol. XII, p. 1). Soc iiUo the Keviow of Froude's Supplementary 
Volume (in English Historical Keviuw, Vol. II. p. 300). 


ers, confessors, and martyrs are set in the foreground in a 
way to allow no true perspective and to shut out a just appre- 
ciation of their moral worth. It is worthy of note that, in 
describing the martyrdom of Cyprian, Gibbon dwells upon the 
decorum of the Koman officials by whom he was beheaded, as 
if to throw a shade over the ghastly scene of the murder of 
an aged bishop of brilliant powers and spotless character. It 
is a relief to the reader when, once in a while, a character so 
elevated as that of Athanasius calls out from Gibbon cordial 
tributes of admiration. 

It is quite possible for a writer to be diligent in investiga- 
tion, with a strong understanding, and free from any wrong 
intention, and yet merely by his temperament be disqualified 
from comprehending an order of mind diverse from his own. 
Owing to a lack of imaginative sympathy, not a few are inca- 
pable of appreciating a nature in which enthusiasm is a living 
force. No one doubts that Southey was an accomplished liter- 
ary man and withal a poet; 3'et when he undertook to portray 
the character and career of John Wesley he partially faUed. 
Coleridge's annotations to Southey's biography of the Meth- 
odist founder supply the element of spiritual insight. The 
American edition of that work contains the additional notes 
by a Methodist divine on both Southey and Coleridge. The 
s[>ectacle of this triangular contest is somewhat dramatic. 
Milman is a name always to be mentioned with respect. The 
History of Latin Christianity is the work of an author truly 
learned, with broad literary sympathies, and free from secta- 
rian partiality. But when Milman applies himself to describe 
a personage like Hildebrand, and especially to describe that 
saintly monarch Louis IX of France, we are struck with the 
limitations of the author. Piety that surpasses the limit of 
Anglican moderation, devotion that is coupled with what to 
the men of to-day seem extravagances — for instance in the 
direction of austerities — awakens in the author a certain invol- 
untary disrespect that, without design, colors the entire por- 
traiture. Let one compare Neander's account of the two 
famous men just mentioned with Milman's, and one will 
instantly feel the difference between an insight that discerns 
the essentials of a truly lofty nature and a perception that 
stays more on the surface. There is something almost humor- 
ous in the thought of a writer like Hallam, to whom anything 
but an exact statement is repugnant, passing judgment upon 


a mail like Martin Lntber, of a frolicksome humor, aud with 
emotions that poured themselves out in extravagances of 

The historical student is perpetually called upon to discount 
the influence of personal or party prejudice. The unpracticed 
scholar may be tempted to accept with little or no scrutiny the 
statements of contempory writers merely because they were 
contemporary. Here, it is felt, we have the testimony of one 
who was present and saw the persons with his own eyes. It 
is forgotten that these witnesses, not unlikely, are the very ones 
to be warped by likes and dislikes. One of the most fascinating 
of all historical books of this class is the Memoirs of St. Simon. 
What pictures of court and camp in the days of Louis XIV I 
What life-like portraits of men and women — vivid portrayals of 
their looks and conduct! Yet few writers are more swayed by 
personal. sympathy or antipathy. Kanke's dissection of St. 
Simon is an invaluable aid to the student, like his critiques of 
Clarendon, Burnet, Davila, and others of almost equal fame. 

The better tone of history is in nothing more apparent than in 
the. waning influence of party prejudice. The custom of brand- 
ing heretics in politics and religion, or those deemed to be such, 
with epithets appropriate to thieves and robbers, is passing 
away. The good old maxim "Audi alteram partem" is com- 
ing to be more observed. There is not only a more exhaustive 
search for the reciuisite materials of judgment, but with it 
greater impartiality. In seasons of party conflict it is curious 
how a misrepresentation will spread. Some of us remember 
that forty years ago everywhere in the North the opinion of 
Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott Cage was denounced, 
lie was quoted in countless newspapers and speeches as having 
declared from the bench that "negroes have no rights which 
the white man is bound to respect." What he did say was 
something quite different, namely, that for a century before the 
framing of the Constitution negroes "had been regarded as so 
far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was 
bound to respect, and that the negro might justly be reduced 
to slavery for his benefit." Whether the Chief Justice was i)er- 
fectly correct in this statement or not, he nowhere expresses an 
approval of the sentiment, which he said was formerly enter- 
tained. He might, perhaps, have done well to refer to declara- 
tions in a different tone at least, like the passage on the iniquity 
of the slave trade which Jefferson inserted in the first draft 
of the Declaration of Independence, lint how manifestly 


nnjast to impute to him a sentiment to which he gave no 
express or implied sanction ! Whoever has had occasion to study 
the religious contests of the past is not seldom obliged to revise 
traditional verdicts respecting the leaders. As students are 
aware, there is abundant room for criticism of most of the 
Protestant as well as Roman Catholic biographers of Luther. 
How many Protestants of average knowledge know anything 
of the bigamy of the Landgrave of Hesse, to which the Witten- 
berg reformers lent their sanction f No man has been more 
detected by Puritans and people of Puritan descent than Arch- 
bishop Laud. No doubt he was a martinet in matters of wor- 
ship, with a hard and inflexible temper, which made him cast 
iutoprison and driveoutof the Kingdom good men whosedepar- 
tures from ritual prescriptions were treated as heinous crimes. 
Yet, while in one sphere narrow and consequently cruel, he was 
in reference to theology, compared with his adversaries, a broad 
churchman. In that day of conflict between Galvinist and 
Arminian, he would make room for both. Repugnant as are 
the conceit and tyranny of James I, as they were displayed at 
the Hampton Court conference, when he pitted the prelates 
against the Puritan divines, we must do him the justice to 
remember that he denied the request of those divines to insert 
in the Anglican creed, as new tests of orthodoxy, the Lambeth 
articles, with their more rigid formulas of predestination. On 
the one side, intolerance as to the ritual^ on the other, intol- 
erance as to doctrine. Neither party, according to our idea of 
freedom, was contending for liberty except for itself. 

When partisan acrimony is reenforced by personal ill will, 
we have but a sorry equipment for impartial judgment. It 
was not without a shock that some, whose youthful enthusiasm 
for Macanlay was not quenched, read, in one of his letters in 
Travelyan's Life,^ the bitter reference to his Tory antagonist, 
Croker, that ^^ impudent, leering Croker," as he styles him, 
and the words that follow this expression: '^See whether I do 
not dust that varlet's jacket for him in the next number of the 
Blue and Yellow^ — that is, the Edinburgh Review for Septem- 
ber, 1831. Macaulay's review of Croker's edition of Boswell 
is in keeping with additional words contained in the letter 
referred to: "I detest him more than cold boiled veal.'- Lock- 
hart's critique of the Edinburgh article, in the Noctes Ambro- 
siana^ of Blackwood, proves its lack of candor and how far it 
fell short of accuracy. Whoever would fully understand the 

> Lift) and LptU-ra of Macaulay, Vol. I., p. 218. 


spirit of exaggeration that characterized Macaulay should 
read Speddiug's two volaines, entitled << Evenings with a 
Keviewer." There it is demonstrated that the famoas article 
on Bacon is but the expansion of Pope's line, 

The wisesti brightcHt, meanest of maukind — 

where the last epithet of the poet is a monstrous hyperbole. 
The marvelous memory of Macaulay, and his extraordinary 
power, from mere recollection, of conjuring up in his mind 
pictures of the past, with the circumstances and dates fitted 
into their places, no doubt explains the occurrence of errors, 
and partly accounts for his persistency in them when they had 
been x)ointed out. But it hardly avails to excuse his failure to 
acknowledge such a mistake as the confounding of William 
Penn, the Quaker, with George Penn, the pardon broker. 

There is one question in connection with my subject which 
demands particular attention. What shall be the criterion of 
moral judgment respecting characters in the i)astf What is 
the right touchstone! Some go so far as to say that no ver- 
dicts at all are to be rendered, and only the data for them are 
to be furnished. A writer not void of moral earnestness can 
hardly fasten such a padlock on his lips. Dean Stanley, speak- 
ing of his old master, Dr. Arnold, of liugby, remarked to me 
that he had seen Arnold, when recurring to some iniquitous 
act far back in lioman times, <' livid with rage." Men of less 
vigor of conscience will experience emotions of this kind in 
some degree, and are not bound to stifle the utterance of them. 
But what shall be the standard? Shall it be the ethical per- 
cex)tions of an advanced age! Shall it be the rules of conduct 
that make up the code of good men to day! So Lord Acton, 
in his learned and instructive inaugural lecture on the Study 
of History, strenuously contends: 

'*Tbe weight of opinion is against lue when I exhort yon," bo he writes, 
*' never to dcbaBe the moral cnrrency or to lower the standard of recti- 
tnde, bnt to try others by the finul maxim that governs onr own lives, and 
to suffer no man and no causo to escape the nndying penalty which history 
has the power to inilict on wrong. The plea in extenuation of guilt and 
mitigation of punishment is pcrpotnal. At every step we are met by 
arguments which go to excuse, to palliato, to confound right and wrong, 
and reduce the just man to the level of the reprobate.'" 

So says Lord Acton. On the contrary, others are positive 
that a method of judgment so severe is unrighteous. They 
contend that men of the past must be judged from the point of 

' Leotuiv, p. 63. 


view of their contemporaries, and according to the measure 
of light possessed in their own time. There is some confusion 
among the disputants on this matter. Both parties are right, 
and neither excludes the other. On the one hand, the ethical 
law is not to be forgotten. The ideal 8taudai*d is not to be let 
down. The conduct of men of every age may profitably be 
brought into comparison with it. !N'o plea for the wicked is to 
bo tolerated that amounts to an apology for wickedness. On 
the other hand, however, the question of subjective guilt, or 
the degree of personal ill desert, is another point. Practical 
ethics, like the art of house building, is progressive. Some 
things are always and everywhere known to be wrong, and are 
abhorrent to all men. Yet moral discernment of the right in 
the concrete advances as the day advances from dawn to noon- 
tide. Morality continually branches out, to human vision, in 
new directions. Penalties of civil law in the most civilized 
states, inflicted within the limits of the present ceiftury, are 
now felt to be barbarous. It does not follow that we are more 
deserving of praise than our predecessors. Not long ago 
practices that the law and moral sense now forbid were not 
perceived to be cruel; for example, in the methods of prison 
discipline. There is a new feeling even respecting cruelty to 
animals. In a chapter of the Memorabilia, Xenophou gives 
us an account of a call made by Socrates with some of his 
disciples on an Athenian courtesan, Theodota.^ The philoso- 
pher converses pleasantly with her, and gives her shrewd 
advice as to how to attract men and to ply her occupation 
skillfully. Suppose a teacher of moral philosophy in one of 
our universities — for Socrates was a teacher of ethics — were to 
copy his example as thus related, and related, be it observed, 
without the least censure, by one of his disciples. Shall we 
then denounce Socrates, one of the noblest men of all time, 
and a martyr, if there ever was one! 1 have heard a theolo- 
gian speak harshly of him on the ground of this record in the 
Memorabilia. But the good man forgot that on the roll of 
heroes and saints, in that splendid passage of Holy Writ, the 
eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, there stands 
the name of Eahab, the harlot, lie forgot that Eevelation 
itself was gradual, and that the laws given to men of old time, 
much more their practices, are pronounced in the Gospel 

I Memorabilia b. Ill, c. XI. 


According to the iiitorimtional law of antiquity, the lives of 
captives taken in war were forfeited. They might be redaced 
to slavery or slain, at the option of the captor. Ethical feel- 
ing had risen to no higher level. It is manifestly unreasonable 
to consider Julius Civsar as guilty for the slaughter of prisoners 
of war as a modern commander, in the light of Christianity, 
would be for the same act. Napoleon Bonaparte ordered a 
multitude of Turkish prisoners at Jaffa — whose lives, moreover, 
had been promised them — to be marched to the beach and shot. 
Of the opinion of apologists who excuse this foul deed. Pro- 
fessor Sloane properly remarks: 

Those who hold that in any war, whether just or unjust, tlie piactice 
of barbarity is excusable if it load to speedy victory, will ajrree with that 

The deed of NaiK)leon was execrable, because he wa» not in 
the dark as to the code of Christian morality, but with ruthless 
cruelty {ramified it under foot. Bismarck sent broadcast over 
Europe a telegram which he had recast from an official message 
sent to him, by omitting parts vital to the impression that it 
conveyed. The impression of the garbled telegram was that a 
personal insult had been offered to the Emperor William by 
Benedetti, the French minister, and had been so regarded by 
the Emperor — which was false; and the impression, which was 
likewise false, that for this reason negotiations as to the Hohen- 
zoUern question between the two Governments had been 
broken off by the Emperor. Bismarck, as reported by Busch, 
said of this proceeding, "The thing really succeeded. The 
French were- fearfully angry at the condensed telegram, and a 
couple of days later they declared war against^ us."' He pre- 
dicted on the spot, as he says in his autobiography, that it 
*' would have the effect of a red rag upon the Gallic bull." ^ He 
fairly chuckles over this cunning device that heated the tem- 
per of two nations to the boiling point. It is a mild judgment 
to call it a Machiavelian trick. A Frenchman might be par- 
doned for calling it an instance of shameless mendacity. 

With the lapse of time, as events and persons recede further 
into the past, we And that history looks at men in their broad 
lines of difference. It drops out of sight minor circumstances. 

' Life of Napolpon, Vol. II, p. 48. 

'Bismarck, Somo Secret Pa^cx of hin lli8t<iry, clo., Vol. I, p. 304. 

■Bismarck, thoMau aud the StutOMinau, Vol. II, p. 101. The two tflo^ramH arc giren 
in fill! by Delbruck iu the ProtiHsi.Hcho Jahrbiicher for October, 1895. The commentH of 
Delbriiok are clear and diAcrliiiinating. They are of spet'iitl service to tho reader of V. 
Sybel'B account in his Begriinding d. dentschcn lioiclm, Vol. VII. 


It is the ruling x^arpose wheu it stAiids out that absorbs atten- 
tion and determines the popular estimate of i^ersonal worth. 
Subordinate details, even grave errors of opinion and conduct, 
vanish when one is viewed from the distance. In a crisis, did 
this man cast his lot on the right side? And was he unselfish 
and brave f If he did that and was thiftj serious faults are con- 
doned. The most noted leader in the antislavery conflict in 
this country was Mr. Garrison. He was vehement in his advo- 
cacy of disunion. He denounced the Constitution of the United 
States as a ^^ covenant with death and an agreement with 
hell." His habit of speech appears in the following sentence, 
which I casually met in looking over an old number of The 
Liberator:^ '<The man who throws up his cap and cries 
<The Union forever' is morally in a condition to be sent to a 
madhouse and have a strait-jacket put upon him." Yet Gar- 
rison now stands high in popular esteem. A scholar and 
author as distinguished as Gold win Smith writes a eulogistic 
memoir of him. It is simply because he is thought to stand 
the test that I have stated. He is considered to have been 
on the right side and to have been a fearless and unselfish 
champion of a righteous cause. All else is overlooked. In 
Boston, where a mob led him along the streets with a rope 
about his waist, you may see his statue in everduring brass. 
The great statesman, Daniel Webster, was a contemporary of 
Garrison. He saw some things that Garrison did not see — 
one thing in particular. It was not simply that his heart was 
full of the precious memories of the American Union. Web- 
ster saw that with the American Union was identified the 
cause of civilization on this continent. He felt that to break 
it up would be the signal for anarchy, probably for civil war 
and a social wreck. " Liberty and Union, one and inseparable," 
were words that embodied his deepest conviction. Hence he 
dealt with the slavery question in a spirit that seemed cowardly 
and timeserving to one who underrated the value of the Union, 
and in his horoscope caught no glimpse of civil war, with its 
unspeakable horrors and possible ruin. Posterity will not 
doubt that the defender of the Constitution and the Union, 
whatever his faults may have been, deserves the statue placed 
in his honor in front of the statehouse in Boston. History 
will adjudge him to have been a sincere patriot, as well as a 
farseeing statesman. 

1 The Liberator, March 4, 1859. 


Bear with me while I briefly revert to our New England his- 
tory. The character of the Puritan founders of New England 
is a question warmly contested. Dr. Palfrey, a man of great 
liberality, without sympathy with Puritan theology, who gave 
practical proof of his love of freedom, is considered by many 
to have written in a too apologetic vein. Certainly care is now 
taken by many to steer clear of any such imputation. This may 
be said, that no man is competent to judge fairly the Puritan 
founders of Massachusetts and Connecticut unless, in the first 
place, he recognizes the distinction between a settlement or 
colony in its infancy and a full-fledged commonwealth. A 
colony stands midway between the family and the state. Nor 
is he then qualified to judge unless he bears in mind that uni- 
formity in religious professions and practices in a political com- 
munity had been one of the ruling ideas of men from the first 
Christianizing of the Teutonic tribes and nations, to say nothing 
of the feeling and precedents deeply rooted in a remoter past. 
Besides the inherited theory as to the function of the state, the 
record of religious factions begotten of the Ileformation, or 
occasioned by it, intensified in the fathers of New England the 
dread of anarchy and social demoralization. lioger Williams 
was one of the few who, along with many erratic notions, 
caught sight of the modern idea of the state a« limited in its 
functions, and of the civil authority as holding no divine com- 
mission to repress religious error. Give him whatever credit 
is due to him for taking a step in advance of almost all his 
contemporaries. But surely John Winthrop was as good a 
man as Eoger Williams! Certainly for no man did Williams 
himself cherish a deeper reverence and esteem. And, as the 
founder of a State, when all things are considered, Winthrop 
does not stand on a lower level than Williams. In such an 
<^ office there is required a combination of qualities. Jefferson 
somewhere likens the character of the New Englanders to that 
of the Jews. Whatever grains of truth there are or were in 
this comparison, it is not altogether a reproach. Even if 
Jacob, in the spirit of his dealings with Esau, was not attract- 
ive, yet it has been truly said of Jacob that he was a better 
man to found a commonwealth than Esau. And there have 
been many Israelites superior to Jacob, in being without guile. 

A single reflection shall bring these remarks to a close. I 
want to say that I have been impressed anew with the dignity 
of the vocation of the historian and the historical teacher, as 



connected with the particular function to which we have 

attended. Surely it is a high office to fulfill — that of rescuing 

from unmerited reproach the men of the past whose names 

have been clouded by defamation, and who can utter no word 

iu their own defense. It is a high office, not less, to strij) from 

the unworthy the laurels which they have no right to wear. I 

bad just written these last sentences when there fell under my 

eye words of the same purport from the pen of Tacitus. In the 

midst of his account of the crimes of Tiberius he x)auses to 

say: " I hold it to be the chief function of history not to leave 

virtuous deeds unrecorded, and to make the reprobation of 

posterity a terror to evil words and acts." ^ The recollection 

of this great writer, of his dignity and i)ower, emboldens me to 

say that to historical scholars the world must look for the 

awards of a righteous judgment. The nearer they come to 

realizing the ideal of their calling, the more will they be owned 

as the highest court of appeals that the limitations of our 

human life render possible. 

> Axmal., Lib. IU, 6U. 
HIST 98 3 







By Herbert Friedenwald. 

In the short time that I shall occupy no more will be attempted 
than to indicate briefly some of the more important historical 
manascripts of the Library of Congress. It will not be possible 
to go into details, nor, I may say at the outset, will I have the 
pleasurable task of describing a vast collection, such as that of 
the Vatican, whose treasures have been so learnedly i)ortrayed 
by Professor Haskins. Yet that of the Library of Congress 
is well worthy of having the attention of historians attracted 
to it, more especially as the establishment by Congress of a 
special department under the Library of Congress for the care 
of manuscripts marks a great step forward in the history of 
the care of the Government archives in this country. Nor 
was this action taken any too soon in this instance. An almost 
total neglect, in that they were stored away indiscriminately 
among books and pamphlets in cellar and garret, exposed 
alternately to heat and cold, damp and dust, for a period, in 
most cases, of from fifteen to thirty years, has leit its inefface- 
able marks. As a result, of the six hundred and odd bound 
volumes scarcely more than a tithe will make a presentable 
appearance, and be fit to be handled without rebinding. Of 
those unbound, numbering some 170 volumes, and two hundred 
and odd bundles (which when bound will nearly double the 
number of volumes on the shelves), the tale of abuse that has 
fallen to their lot is even sadder, and, naturally, because of 
their greater exposure to injury. All told, of the 25,000 indi- 
vidual original manuscripts forming the collection, but an 
insignificant portion are in such a state of preservation as to 
require no attention at the restorer's hands. To arrange these 
upon temporary shelves — for the permanent fixtures for the 
manuscript department of the Library have just been put 
in place — ^to classify them so that even before cataloguing 



they might be rendered measurably accesstble; to begin at 
once the preparation of a catalogue, for none has ever been in 
existence; to put repairers at work and to give attention to an 
infinity of minor details, such was the work which may be said 
to have begun just about one year ago. We must pass now 
from the consideration of mere mechanical details to the more 
important matter of the contents and scope of the historical 

It will surprise none to state that practically all the papers 
of an historical nature relate to the Colonial and Revolu- 
tionary history of our own country, though the investigator 
who is making researches in the history of the West Indies 
and of British America can ill afford to pass by the few, yet 
valuable, volumes we have relating to those possessions. For 
many of the manuscripts, gathered with such painstaking 
care by George Chalmers, who took advantage of his excep- 
tional opportunities, have found their way here and help to add 
greatly to the worth of the collections relating to Colonial 
history. Not the least interesting of the volumes compiled by 
him is one entitled Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over the British 
Colonies, containing papers concerning that much agitated 
subject between the dates 1662 and 1768. The Colonies con- 
cerned are Virginia, North and South Carolina, New York, and 
Jamaica. And the investigator will find a worthy suj^plemeut 
to the information contained in this volume by reference to the 
pax)ers which we have of Sir William Johnson and which 
cover the years 1760 to 1767. Included among these is a 
petition addressed to him in 1766 by the Episcopal clergy in 
convention assembled in New York, praying him to use his 
good offices with the Board of Trade to i)rocure bishops for 

Of great utility in supplying information that is missing 
from the Chahners papers is another unique set of documents 
relating to our colonial history. They are the so-called Vernon- 
Wager Papers, in 12 large folio volumes. There is scarcely 
a phase of colonial history in its broadest sense during the 
first half of the eighteenth century that they do not touch 
U])on, though in the main being made up of reports and opin- 
ions of Admiral, Lord Vernon. A catalogue of the documents 
in this collection which relate to Cuba was published in the 
first publication issued from the Library of Congress during 
the incumbency of Mr. Young. 


Passing from the high church of a few minutes ago to high 
Toryism, we come to one of the most interesting series of docu- 
ments in the Library. It is the collection of 35 volumes, 
together with a few miscellaneous papers, containing the pro- 
ceedings of a commission for inquiring into the losses, serv- 
ices, and claims of the American loyalists during the war for 
Independence, and who were later indemnified by act of Par- 

A word as to their history by way erf preface. They found 
their way in due course to England, from whence they were 
procured by Maj. Gen. J. H. Lefroy, a governor of Bermuda, 
and presented through him (by his relation, Mrs. Dundas, of 
Gannon Hall, Larbert, New Brunswick, a descendant of one of 
the commissioners) to the Smithsonian Institution in 1874. J u- 
asmuch as the Library of Gongress is the depository for the 
books, etc., of the Smithsonian, they naturally found their way 

The commissioners whose proceedings are thus recorded 
were Gol. Thomas Dundas and Mr. ff. Pemberton, and the 
notes of the testimony taken before them relate to 1,400 cases. 
This testimony in many instances goes very much into detail, 
and we therefore have here an amount of information respect- 
ing the careers of prominent colonial figures that is nowhere 
else to be found. Roughly sx)eaking, the hearings were held 
during the years 1783-1790 under the several acts of Parlia- 
ment, and the commissioners heard the testimony at SL John, 
at Halifax, and at MontreaL 

Stepping, now firmly on the continent we should appropri- 
ately land in Virginia. To her history the Library can con- 
tribute much that is of inestimable value. I need only refer 
to the records of the Virginia company, in two large folio vol- 
umes, in a magnificent state of preservation, and covering the 
years 1619-1624, and which, parenthetically, I trust this Associa- 
tion will see fit to publish at an early day. Their value is so 
great and so well known as to require no further comment. 
At present they form one of the most attractive parts of an 
exhibition of manuscripts installed in one of the exhibition 
halls; but with the purchase of Jefierson's library came other 
manuscripts second only in importance to these. Among them 
are the originals of the early laws of Virginia, some of which 
Henning used for his great publication; but there are many 
documents of a similar nature which Henning might have 


used bad he had access to them. Among these are the maiiu- 
scripts which were sold when Jefferson's second library was 
dispersed in J 829, and they contain much important material 
for the history of Virginia in the seventeenth century, collected 
by Jefferson at a time when they might otherwise have been 

Turning to New England, we find the history of New Hamp- 
shire during the eighteenth century is especially well repre- 
sented. Letters of private persons, letters of Government 
officials, official documents, governors' proclamations, acts of 
council and assembly, and a multitude of other papers relating 
to the history of New Hampshire during the eighteenth cen- 
tury comprise the list. They were all gathered by that inde- 
fatigable collector Peter Force, and he appears to have picked 
and culled most liberally, for many a document that is stated 
in the published New Hampshire records to be missing is to be 
found here. It may also be noted that Connecticut is specially 
well represented by letters of Governor Trumbull, in addition 
to other documents that we have not time to specify here. 

Passing from New England, we may properly stop at one of 
the Middle States. Little Delaware must now arrest our 
attention, for here are to be found nearly 500 documents, con. 
tained in 4 stout volumes relating to her history during the 
seventeeth and eighteenth centuries. Most of them are offi- 
cial, being in many instances the original proceedings of the 
council and house of representatives. Perhaps the most inter- 
esting are the minutes of the convention which proclaimed 
Delaware's constitution in 1791. Among them also are many 
original letters and messages of John Dickinson, comprising 
perhaps the largest body of his original papers extant. And 
to this list must be added a number of very early deeds and 
records of similar character, dating back to the time of 
Swedish occupation. 

For Maryland history we can produce no less a volume than 
that containing the minutes of the Baltimore committee of 
safety from November, 1774, to October, 1776. At the end of 
this volume is a very interesting lot of names of shipowners who 
subscribed to an oath that they had not introduced into the 
State any of the articles of British manufacture or growth 
whose importation was prohibited by Congress. Another 
Maryland volume is the letter book of the Intendant's Office of 
the State during the years 1785 and 1787. 


As respects Pennsylvaniay we can produce the volaminous 
minates of tbe coaucil of safety at Lancaster from 1774 to 
1777, and lists of British and Hessian prisoners lodged at 
Lancaster during that time. 

Passing from State documents, we may next take up those 
that are more closely related to individuals and their careers. 
The figure that looms up with appropriate prominence is that 
of Washington. The -collection of letters and papers from 
his pen or that have passed through his hands as witnessed 
by his indorsement is probably the largest outside the Depart- 
ment of State. Though relating in good measure to the 
Revolution, there are still a number of documents which con- 
cern the earlier period of the colonial wars and the later of his 
Presidential career. Of very special importance is the inter- 
esting lot of press copies of his letters, 214 in number, writ- 
ten between 1793 and 1790, the last bearing date within two 
weeks of his death. I can not tarry longer over this splendid 
lot of manuscripts than to mention a large number of letters 
from him to Bochambeau concerning the cooperative move- 
ments of the two armies, and to refer to the well-known 
orderly book of the Braddock expedition in two volumes, and 
the journal kept during the Federal Convention. 

The mention of Rochambean's name leads me naturally to 
say a few words about those papers which form so valuable a 
part of the Library's collections. Instead of consisting merely 
of his letter books, to which alone access has been had by his- 
torians, they comprise in addition about 500 original docu- 
ments of the first imi>ortance. Much of the original corre- 
spondence between Rochambeau and his officers, and especially 
with De la Luzerne, the French minister, form a considerable 
part of this series. Many of the English documents have been 
translated into French by Rochambeau himself, and we thus 
have in many instances the original and Rochambeau's own 
version of it. Some of the most interesting documents are 
those which relate to the membership of the French officers in 
the Society of the Cincinnati. The most unique of these docu- 
ments relating espccinlly to that society is one which eontsiins 
the subscriptions made by the members of Rochambeau's staft' 
to the general fund of the society. It is headed by Bocham- 
beau with 0,000 francs, and the others follow with subscriptions 
suitable to their ranks. It is scarcely necessary to add that 
this subscription list bears the original signatures of the sub- 
scribers. It gives nie miivh pleasure to state that quite 




recently these papers have been supplemented by the parcbase 
of a large nnmber of letters and documents of the Comte de 
Segur, French minister of war during our war for Independence. 
Before getting too far away from the period to which they 
relate, I wish to gby a word about the original manuscripts of 
Governor Thomas Pownall. In common with almost everything 
that Pownall did, his letters are without exception of great 
importance. One of the most interesting is a letter containing 
a description of the Albany convention, though unfortunately 
it is only a fragment. Another is his ^^Considerations on the 
present state of North America/' which is 21 pages in length 
and begins : 

The foHowing Papers propose to conoid- 
First. The Cite of the Country. 

Secondly. The Interests of Possessions & Settlements as the Basis. 
Thirdly. Of the State of the Service in America. 

It is a long way from Massachusetts to Michigan, but time 
is growing short and I must pass over many documents to 
which I should like to draw attention in order that I may 
speak of the Schoolcraft papers. Those familiar with the 
career of Henry R. Schoolcraft know what an indefatigable 
worker he was and will not be surprised to learn that he left 
numerous manuscripts. But these relate not alone to his 
researches in Indian ethnology. He appears to have been a 
man of most methodical habits and carefully preserved the 
letters received by him as the result of a correspoildence 
extending over a period of more than fifty years. Of these 
the letters and papers of Governor Lewis Cass ai^e of the first 
interest. Schoolcraft seems to have been for many years the 
confidential secretary of Governor Cass, and in consequence 
the documents which he has preserved, most of them being in 
the handwriting of Cass himself, are those which relate to his 
official career from 1815 to 1860. The most of them, however, 
are letters and <locuments written while he was the governor 
of Michigan Territory. But after he began his career in 
Washington he kept up a long corresi)ondence with Schoolcraft 
upon a variety of miscellaneuus subjects, all of which is care- 
fully preserved. 

Other personal papers, to which reference ought also be 
made, are tiiose of Gen. John Sulhvan, the letter books of 
Gen. Nathanael Greene during 1781 and 1782, and the papers 
and letter books of Col. Ephraim Blaine, the ancestor of James 


G. Blaine, who was coinmissary-general during the Revohi- 
tion. The latter's volamiuous correspondence from 1777 to 
the end of the war represents a vast deal of material of great 
importance, in that it shows the means by which the Revolu- 
tionary army was subsisted — an economic as well as a histor- 
ical matter of very considerable moment. He was also the 
commissary-general of the forces during the whisky insurrec- 
tion, and among his papers are many valuable documents 
which contribute to an understanding of that event. 

Nor must we overlook the letter books of President Monroe 
while representing this country at the Court of St. James and 
those of Du Simiti^re while engaged on his work of collecting 
material for his history of the Revolutionary war. 

So much for the originals. A word now as to the tran- 
scripts. The greater part of these were collected, as were also 
many of the originals, by Peter Force, and came to the Library 
when his library was purchased in 1867, They are often sec- 
ond only in importance to the originals, though they relate 
almost entirely to the Revolutionary period. 

It is, however, with some regret and no little hesitation that 
I undertake the task of dissolving a myth that has up till now 
hedged about these Force transcripts. He who has in mind 
a ])ictnre of a vast mass of orderly arranged material that 
could at any day be sent to the printer and the series of vol- 
umes of the American Archives be thus pushed to completion 
must disabuse his mind of any such fond picture, for no such 
mass of material exists. What there is consists of a partial 
and more or less accurate lot of copies of the papers of the 
Continental Congress and of other papers which are now in 
the Department of State. When they came into my hands 
their disarrangement and disorder were such as to give one 
little hope of bringing any sort of order out of that chaotic 
mass. They are now arranged temporarily about as well as 
it will ever be possible to arrange them and as they have 
never been since they left Peter Force's hands. No manu- 
script ready to send to the printer is here, and it is therefore 
an assured fact that the nine volumes of Force's archives will 
never have another volume added to complete the series out- 
lined by their editor. 

Before passing to the consideration of some general ques- 
tions which arise out of the conduct of a manuscript depart- 
ment, I wish to say a word about a collection of bills, accounts. 


and iiiventorieH covering the years 1650 to 1764. Thongh per- 
haps more of e^roiiomic than of historical importance they 
present a mass of material in fifty-four volumes, comprising 
about 7j(H)0 separate documents relating to the history of 
prices in England during the century covered. They were 
collected by Mr. Ilallowell-Phillips, the Shake8[)earean scholar, 
and were presented to the Smithsonian Institution in 1852. 
There is scarcely a branch of trade, an article, or a product of 
agriculture the history of which is not illustrated by these 
papers. They are in excellent shape, and I commend them to 
the attention of the historians and economists. 

It will not be out of place for me to refer 'briefly to the man- 
ner in which it is proposed to care for the manuscripts, a few 
of the more important of which are liere referred to. Inas- 
much as such a mass of documents without a catalogue Is 
almost useless, the work of cataloguing was begun about the 
1st of January, 1808, and with some interruptions has been 
continued by two persons under my direction since that time. 
It has been tlie endeavor to make this catalogue as full as pos- 
sible, sup])lying a great deal of information that would be 
useful but is not contained in the documents themselves. 
Some 0,(M)0 caids have been written, and it is hoped in the near 
future to take advantage of the present-day interest in naval 
affairs and publish a calendar of the letters and papers of 
John Paul Jones, twelve volumes of whose manuscripts are in 
the Library. That work is now about half completed. At the 
same time a calendar of the Washington manuscripts has been 
begun, and it is hoped that we will be able to publish both of 
these during the course of the next year. Following this it is 
the intention to publish caleiulars of the documents relating 
to the history of the Colonies and States, 

It maybe well also to call attention to the specially designed 
cases which have now been put in place in the room assigned 
to the manuscript department. They are of steel, wood, and 
glass, are designed to hold about 3,000 folio volumes, and not 
the least interesting parts of the general scheme are large 
burglar-proof safes, as also a series of small drawers, the lat- 
ter being designed for the convenient temporary arrangement 
of manuscripts before binding. 

No collection of this nature would bo ])roperly cared for with- 
out some attention being devoted to its increase. So far the 
appropriations for that purpose have been hopelessly inade- 
quate, but there is reason to believe that ('ongress will in due 


course take tbe just view of the necessities of the case. It is 
duly appreciated that it will be impossible ever to compete 
with the great European collections of ancient manuscripts. 
It has therefore been decided that we will restrict ourselves to 
the collection of manuscripts relating to the history, literature, 
and science of America. We have a very fair beginning in 
historical material. Our endeavor will next be while increas- 
ing that to get representative specimens of the writing of lit- 
erary and scientific men. But there is a branch of science little 
cultivated in this country, and to which it is proper that the 
National Library should devote its attention and lend its aid 
and encouragement. The study of paleography is imx>ossible 
without having the material at command for its pursuit. It 
will therefore be our endeavor to collect specimens of the art 
of writing of all kinds and all ages, and to supplement those 
by the acquisition of published facsimiles. Another point. 
This branch of the Library of Congress is the only branch of 
the Government specially created for the care of Government 
manuscripts. Throughout the city of Washington in all of 
the Executive Departments are vast quantities of invaluable 
historical records that are going to decay from absolute neglect. 
Many of them have no relation to the branch of the Govern- 
ment in which they are deposited and in no instance is there 
any adequate arrangement for the convenience of scholars 
desiring to consult them. It has been proposed by the Libra- 
rian that all manuscripts of a historical and not of an admin- 
istrative character should be transferred to the Library of 
Congress, where they would not only be suitably taken care 
of, but where scholars might freely consult them with all the 
facilities of a great library at their beck and call. I consider 
this matter of such importance as to warrant some action being 
taken re8i>ecting it by this Association, and I commend the 
subject to you for your earnest consideration. 

I need scarcely add. in conclusion,' that I have but scratched 
the surface — it is for the members of this Association to till the 
field that lies before them. Access to the manuscripts is denied 
to no one who comes properly accredited, or who is known to 
the superintendent of the department. Every facility that can 
be thought of will be placed at the investigator's disposal, and 
I trust that I shall in due course have the pleasure of welcoming 
most of those interested in American history to Washington 
and to the manuscript department of the Library of Congress. 





By Charles M. Andrews. 

Generally speaking, our colonial history has been written 
from but one point of view — that of the colonies. The fact 
that the colonists were members of a great colonial empire, 
were subject to an elaborate colonial administration that 
existed, as it were, outside of themselves, has been lost sight 
of more or less in the greater interest historians have had in 
the settlement of the English in America and the development 
of the remarkable forms of government that they wrought on 
American soil. We have been, perhaps, in consequence, too 
provincial in our attitude toward our earlier history, and have 
neglected what must be considered in the light of general his- 
tory as the first and more strictly logical way of viewing the 
subject — that is, we have neglected the standpoint of the 
mother country; of which we were a part. We have left 
largely unexamined the system which English statesmen 
elaborated after long experimentation for the management of 
ourselves in their interest, and we have been too little inter- 
ested in the success or failure of the various attempts which 
they made to apply this system in the different parts of the 
New World. Of course, these subjects have not been left 
entirely out of account by writers on our colonial history. 
Such a treatment would be manifestly impossible; but in most 
cases they have been studied only in parts, here and there, 
and only as incidental, never for their own sakes or as a 
whole, never for the purpose of discovering the unity between 
the difi'erent parts of the system or the extent to which it 
influenced the political, social, religious, and economic sides 
of our colonial life. 

In consequence, a particular period of our colonial history, 
that from 1690 to 1750, has been unduly neglected. This, the 
middle period between colonization and revolution, was not a 
HIST 98 4 ^9 


time of great renultH and had none of the dramatic qualities of 
the years before 1689 or of those after 176i, yet it covered the 
history of two generations of men ; was the training time of 
those, or of the fathers of those, who sat in the Stamp Act and 
Continental Congresses, a time of more or less silent conflict, of 
hard experiences, which taught men lessons and brought men 
knowledge, a time when the political systems already estab- 
lished were taking on new strength, and the economic conditions 
were undergoing important changes. Important as were the 
events that took place before the year 1689, they did not shai>e 
the environment in which were prepared the men and the con- 
ditions confronting us fn 1765. To understand the later period 
we must look not to the era of settlement, but to the middle 
period of conflict and experience. 

To this period Bancroft in his last edition gave less than 
liOO pages, the greater number of which dealt with the wars of 
the Spanish and Austrian successions, the settlement of Louisi- 
ana, and the destiny of America. Ilildreth discussed the 
period at somewhat greater length, giving to it about 250 
pages, but his narrative is wanting in historical insight and 
an adequate appreciation of the importance of the events that 
he chronicles. Furthermore, his method of presentation is 
without unity and a proper coordination of material. Doyle, 
whose three volumes on the colonies are unquestionably the 
best that we have, brings his narrative to an abrupt close with 
tlie year 1700, and thus the historian who might have taken 
the proi)er point of view has deserted the field. In Winsor's 
Narrative and Critical History the chapters on the period are 
too much like perfunctory chronicles of events and do not go 
very far below the surface, while the only one showing depth 
and insight, that of Judge Chamberlain on The Kevolution 
Impending, in reality deals with a later period. Much has 
been done by State historians, but as each writer limits him- 
self to his own particular colony, his presentation is of neces- 
sity narrow in scope and local in interest. Palfrey, who, as 
far as New England is concerned, has done more for the sub- 
ject than has anyone else, is almost always disappornting in 
the way he has managed his material, and because of his 
prejudice is not always trustworthy. Within its limits his 
presentation is more comprehensive, however, than any other 
that we possess, and the facts that he has gathered; because 
of their minuteness of detail, are very welcome to the student; 


bat his volumes, which, ia defense of my criticism, I must say 
I have read in every part with appreciation and care, over and 
over again, at critical junctures fail to tell us, or even to 
suggest to us, the very things that we most wish to know. 

Why is the period important? In answering this question 
I shall divide the period into two parts and consider it from 
two points of view. First, let us take the years from 1695 to 
1715, that is, roughly speaking, from the establishment of 
England's old system of colonial administration to the close of 
the war of the Spanish succession and the accession of the 
House of Hanover. It is a fact of which we are all aware that 
not until the years 1695-96 did England give to her colonial 
administration and commercial policy its first systematic form 
and application. Between 1651 and 1695 she had legislated 
in a series of navigation acts, but she had not attempted to 
apply the system rigorously. The efforts to administer the 
colonial territory by royal officers other than governors, or to 
enforce the laws of trade, with thoroughness in the colonies, 
except it may^ in Barbados and Virginia, do not appear to 
have been^'^l^re than occasional. The efforts were certainly 
not systematically maintained. Before 1695 the colonial admin- 
istration was without form and incomplete; after 1695 it 
became, as far as it ever could become, a system. 

Let me illustrate. Alter 1695 we have (1) a navigation act, 
which, through the setting forth in great detail the method 
and the instruments whereby it was to be administed, provided, 
as none had done before, for its effectual application; (2) a per- 
manent board of trade, which was established for the first 
time and the functions of which included the concerns of both 
trade and plantations; (3) a more systematic, complete, and 
thorough organization of the routine work of the board, and 
of the material which came to its hand for record y (4) the sub- 
stitution in the colonies of a more regular and orderly body of 
royal officers for the occasional collectors, commissioners, naval 
officers, and general overseers, who had represented the 
ests of the home government before this time; (5) the estab- 
lishment of an elaborate admiralty or vice-admiralty system, 
with a full equipment of officers, judges, registrars, marshals, 
attorneys, and the inauguration of a regular court procedure, 
such as was followed in England; (6) the drafting a few years 
later of a set of new instructions for the royal governors, in 
which special stress was laid upon a vigorous enforcement of 


the liome laws. Thus the i>eriod was marked at its beginiiinf^ 
by a strengthening of the old British colonial admin iBtration 
all along the line^ an administration destined from this time 
forward to come more and more under the control of parlia- 
ment and to pass from the hands of Crown and council who 
had hitherto directed colonial afifairs. No writer has, however, 
made any proper attempt to emphasize this fact or to tell uh, 
by careful attention to details, how the experiment worked. 
Yet, so far as it concerned all the colonies together, it is the 
most important phase in their history after 1G89. 

Then, too, we must take another view of the matter. It is 
not enough Uy note the more elaborate shaping of a British 
colonial policy 5 we must remember that the attempt to enforce 
such a policy was made during the years following the battle 
of La Hogue, the last years of the Palatinate war, which saw 
the beginning of England's naval supremsu'y, and during the 
early years of the war of the Spanish succession, which lasted 
for twelve years. It would not be diflicult to show that the 
attempt to enforce the colonial policy during this period of 
persistent warfare was no mere coincidence ; that two as- 
pects of the i)eriod in question were closely related; but, be 
this as it may, it is not too much to say that the history of every 
one of the twelve colonies was shaped and colored by the more 
stringent application of a colonial administration aud tbe war 
of England with France and Spain. The war threatened the 
peace of the colonies, endangered their security, intensified 
England's desire to use the colonies as a source of naval sup- 
plies and led to the bounty act of 1705, and rendered the colo- 
nists more liable than ever to charges of breaking the laws 
and of failing in their military duties to the mother country. 
I know of no period when the complaints of royal oflicers and 
English merchants in America were so frequent and loud, 
when seizures for illegal trading were so numerous, when the 
relations between tlie royal otticers and the colonists were so 
bitter, and when the rights of the Grown and the rights of the 
inhabitants were more difficult to distinguish as in the yeiirs 
from 1690 to 1715. 

During this period Penn surrendered his rights to the Crown 
for two years, 1692-1G94, and nearly did the same a second 
time in 1710-1712; the proprietary of Maryland was forced to 
give up his province in 1691, and his successors did not regain 
it until 1715 J the propretaries of New Jersey, wearying of 


their task, resigned the goverunient permanently in 1701, 
while dnriug the same period the way was prepared for the 
surrender of the Oarolinas, which was ettected in 1720. Yet 
of this time of distress, despondency, and conflict we have no 
ade()uate account; that is to say, no account which gives us 
on one side a view of all the colonies taken together, on the 
other such detail of the working of the British system and of 
the effects of the war as shall make it possible to determine 
with some measure of precision their influence upon the inter- 
nal development of the colon ies. Perhaps we have the " essen- 
tial features," but these are often nothing more than loose 
generalizations. Let us have the exact details, not of the 
laws on the statute books, but of the actual working of the 
system in the field, that reliable conclusions may be nmde 

The second portion of the period from 1715 to 1750 is of a 
very diflerent character. A great change came over the col- 
onies. There was no war, no constant danger from the French 
and Indians, no menace to their shipping at sea; and with the 
relief from the strain and excitement of war the colonists 
begati to gain steadiness and stability. About the same time 
an imi)ortant change took place at home. Queen Anne died, 
the Hanoverians came to the throne, and with George I came 
Townshend, Stanhope, and Walpole. Then followed that policy 
of " wise and salutary neglect,'' as Burke called it, when the 
home Government, giving up its attempt to carry out with any- 
thing like the same rigidity the laws of navigation and trade, 
sufl'ered *■ a generous nature to take her own way to perfec- 
tion." The result was that both politically and economically 
the colonies advanced along the line of a normal development. 
On the political side, the legislatures in their struggle with 
the royal governors, of which there were eight, and after 1720 
nine, gained steadily in importance and influence, and approxi- 
mated a common type. On the economic side, the colonists 
became traders and manufacturers on their own account, and 
entered on an era of progress and consequent prosperity. 
The old conflict went on, but under somewhat different condi- 
tions. The English policy in respect of naval stores remained 
unchanged, the attempts to iireserve the woods were continued, 
but we hear less and less of complaints from such offlcials as 
liandolph, Quary, and Bass, and more frequent comments and 
suggestions of merchants and others interested in trade. 


Such men as Keith, Gee, and Banister discussed trade and 
offered advice. A new naval stores bill was drafted, and from 
the conflict between the interests of the merchant importers 
and those of the colonists sprang the Hat Act, Iron Act, the 
bill of 1731 prohibiting trade with the foreign West Indies; 
which failed of passage in the House of Lords, and the 
Molasses Act. It was an era of no little debate and con- 
troversy regarding the extension of admiralty jurisdiction, the 
working of statute and common law in the colonies, the ques- 
tion of appeals and of the law covering appeals, the issue of 
paper currency, the establishment of land banks, and the solu- 
tion of other financial problems; and then, too, the era was 
characterized by that greater issue of the charters and by the 
many attempts to bring the proprietary and charter govern- 
ments under the direct control of the Crown. 
$( One notices an unmistakable difiference betw^een the two 
l>eriod8. In the first the colonists are in distress and are 
rather browbeaten than otherwise by the home Government; 
in the second they are standing alone in an attitude of confi- 
dence and strength, able to hold their own in the struggle 
with the home Government. One has only to read an order in 
council of the year 1762, which speaks of " the greatly improved 
condition of the plantations of late years, the greatly increased 
wealth of the subjects, and the great Increase of the naviga- 
tion of the Kingdom through the mutual interest between the 
Kingdom and the said colonies, and the trade and commerce 
arising therefrom,'^ to appreciate the situation at the end of 
the half century. 

^ In these two periods there is a rich field for original study, 
and I have indicated a few only of the most evident subjects 
that need examination. To my mind it is not essential that 
we should know what subjects to study beforehand, but rather 
is it important that we should know what mat^ial is avail- 
able and let that guide our thoughts. 

What material is there! If I mention chietiy manuscript 
material, it is because there is chiefiy manuscript material to 
be mentioned. First and foremost is the collection of papers 
in the archives of those commissions, committees of the coun- 
cil, etc., that had to do with trade and plantations before IGOG, 
and of the board which existed from 1G96 to 1783. I am speak- 
ing of no newly discovered series of documents. The papers — 
the official records of England^s colonial administration — have 



been ased by historical writers for a centary. Chalmers in his 
Political Annals and Introduction to the History of the Bevolt 
of the Colonies — works too little used to-day — (]Uoted largely 
from them, and they have been referred to more or less since 
that time. In Chalmers's day access to these documents was 
almost impossible; as an official and secretary of the board of 
trade, he was given special permission to make use of the 
pa])ers; but for others the task of consulting them was made 
exceedingly difficult because of the restrictions imposed. We 
have only to read Mr. Brodhead's description of the condition 
of things in 1843 in the State Pax)er Office, to which the board 
of trade papers had been transferred a few years before, to 
appreciate the grave difficulties under which an investigator 
labored at that time. Even as late as 1854 no one under the 
rank of a privy councilor was allowed access to any of the 
libraries or rooms in the State Paper Office where the pax)ers 
were kept. After 1862, however, when all the English state 
papers were finally collected and placed in the public record 
office in Chancery Lane, all that was changed. Access to the 
board of trade or any other colonial papers of date earlier 
than 17G0 was made as easy to the student as is access to any 
of the manuscript materials in our own State or historical 
society archives; and within the last few years, through the 
efforts of Mr. Maxwell Lyte, this date has been extended to 

The colonial office records — as they are officially called— can 
be divided chronologically into two parts, those before 1689; 
those from 1689 to 1783. The first consists of two groups, (1) 
Colonial Papers, 72 volumes, (2) Colonial Entry Books, 110 
volumes; the second of two different series, (1) those entitled 
America and the West Indies, 269 volumes, consisting of the 
corre8i)ondence with the Secretary of State, (2) the Board of 
Trade papers, 860 volumes, consisting of the correspondence 
with and the papers of the Board of Trade. The latter are 
of three varieties : Original documents, entry books, and the 
journal. The entry books contain extracts from the original 
documents and also copies of representations to the King in 
Council and to Parliament, which unless printed, as is the case 
with a few of the most important, are nowhere else found 
except, it may be, in the Privy Council Register or the records 
of Parliament. Taken all together the volumes of original 
documents and the entry books, of date before 1760, number 


767 } those of the Joarnal 03. There are some additional vol- 
umes of correspondence with the East and West Indies, etc. 
The naniber of all the volumes containing material for the 
period before 1760 is between 1,100 and 1,200; if we extend the 
period to 1783 the number rises to about 1,500. 

Of this material, which is of priceless value, much has 
already been made accessible in this . country. Of printed 
material we have the Sainsbury and Fortesque Calendars of 
Colonial Papers, America and the West Indies, G volumes, 
covering the period from 1574 to 1685; the Documents relating 
to the Colonial History of New York, 15 volumes, gathered by 
Mr. Brodhead and printed under the editorial supervision of 
Dr. O^Callaghan; the North Carolina Colonial liecords in 10 
volumes, edited by Mr. Saunders; and many single documents 
and groups of documents in the collections of the Massachu- 
setts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and other State 
historical societies. Of manuscript copies there are many to 
be found in the Massachusetts and other historical societies' 
archives, notably those of the Virginia Historical Society, and 
the copy of the Journal, now in process of completion by the 
Tennsylvania Historical Society, will always stand as a monu- 
ment to the energy and largeness of view of the late librarian 
of that society, Mr. Frederick D. Stone. 

Of all these collections, only the first and last are complete 
either in i^lan or content; the others are partial, in that each 
has to do with the history of only a single colony. But the 
Calendar has not yet reached the era with which we are con- 
cerned, and the Journal, indispensable as it is, is valuable 
rather for the subjects to which it refers than for the material 
which it contains. No examination of any of these collections 
can give the general view of all the colonies or leave the impres- 
sion regarding their relation to the home Government that 
would the consecutive reading of the 31 volumes composing the 
series called Plantations General. I am convinced that not 
only will the period from 1090 to 1750 not be understood until 
all the volumes of Colonial Papers in the record office have been 
systematically exploited, but that a complete history of our 
colonies will not be written until this is done. Furthermore, 
unless a full list of references be given beforehand, no student 
can approach these volumes with a given subject in mind and 
expect to find easily all the material bearing upon it. Every 
investigator should read tlirough the Plantations General, Pro- 


prieties, aud the Joarnai before attempting to write upon any 
particular subject. Witli the knowledge gained from a reading 
of these papers, the student will be able to turn intelligently 
to an examination of the other, and more special collections of 

And there are other papers that should be examined as well 
as those of the Board of Trade — the Treasury papers, which 
have been largely calendared, but which can be studied in 
manuscript to the year 1759; the Admiralty papers, which 
exist in two series open to the yean799, one referring to the 
courts and the trials aud condemnation of prizes, the other 
containing all business of the Admiralty commission, such as 
appointments, complaints, and the like; the privy council reg- 
ister, the journal or entry book of the privy council's actions, 
which though of value before the year 1696, seems to be of less 
worth after that date, because all the resolutions taken by the 
council relating to the colonies were copied and sent to the 
board and are included in its papers. 

But outside the Public Record OflRce and the government 
offices in Downing street there exists material for colonial 
history, and especially for the period in question of which 
students in America in general know too little — material 
that will throw light where light is needed upon the actual 
working of the British system in America. At both the Brit- 
ish Museum and the Bodleian Library in Oxford a warm wel- 
come is given to the student who comes with serious purpose. 
I have no time to discuss the character of this material. It 
may be enough to say that at the museum the IIarlei<an, Sloane, 
Egerton, Ilargrave, Lansdowne, Stowe, and additional manu- 
script collections, of which there are printed catalogues, are 
full of documents relating to America and the^istory of the 
period under discussion. For the collections in the Bodleian, 
notably the Bawlinson papers, there are admirable catalogues 
issued by the Clarendon Press, which show that there exist 
among these papers letters' from Atwooil, Bellomont, !Nanfan, 
and Corubury in New York, Coxe in New Jersey, and scores of 
others not toJMi found in O'Gallaghan's volumes. In this con- 
nection it may not be out of place to call to mind the manu- 
script tracts relating to America found in the Bodleian Library 
by Prof. Thorold Rogers and printed in the annual report of 
this association for 1892. Of a character similar in many 
respects to the material existing in the British Museum and 


the Bodleian Library is that brought to light by the Historical 
Manuscript Commission and printed in part or in abstract in 
certain of the volumes which make up their lifteen reports. 
Much of the evidence relates to the period of the Eevolution 
and has been made use of already; but there is no little that 
concerns the earlier years of the eighteenth century which 
may be discovered without very great labor by the use of the 
excellent indexes appended to the volumes. 

But manuscript material useful for the study of our history 
from 1G90 to 1750 is not all to be found on the other side of 
the water. For students who can not go to England or who 
shrink from the expense of getting documents copied abroad 
there is a rich field right here at home in the unprinted con- 
tents of State archives and the documents deposited in the 
muniment rooms of the historiccal societies, or kept, when of 
an official and local character, in the offices of town or county 
clerks. Anyone who has used the Hutchinson Papers, the 
Andros Tracts, the Sewall Papers, the Penn-Logan Correspond- 
ence, or the Spotswood and Dinwiddle Papers knows how 
much light this material throws upon the daily life and doings 
of the colonists; and no one who has fully appreciated the new 
information given in the Talcott Papers, published within a 
few years, and knows that other papers of a similar kind are 
in existence, who has seen the great collection of unprinted 
and but partly collated Penn Papers, which the author of the 
History of Proprietary Government in Pennsylvania has used 
to such good advantage, or who has noted how skillfully Mr. 
Bruce has woven into his economic history evidence from the 
unprinted county records of Virginia, will doubt that there is 
still material to be discovered and exploited on our own ground. 

And there is yet another phase of the matter that may well 
demand the attention of the student of British colonial and 
administrative policy and of the commercial expansion of the 
colonies themselves. The British colonies in America extended 
from Newfoundland on tlie north to the Leeward Islands and 
Barbados on the south, whereas we have been too much 
inclined to deal with the subject as if there were only thirteen 
colonies whose history needed to bo studied. I believe that a 
reasonable attention given to the history of the Canadian and 
West Indian colonies will help to elucidate phases of our early 
commen^ial history and of British colonial methods. For all 
these colonies there exists large quantities of material in the 



colonial office records, but attention may be called to another 
source of information. There is to-day in Halifax a collection 
of some COO volumes, made by T. B. Atkins, who had charge 
of a commission appointed by Howe after 1868, containing 
material of a valuable character — old papers found in the prov- 
inces and excerpts from originals in London, Paris, and Boston, 
dealing with the period from 3710 to 1749, and relating to all 
matters touching Nova Scotian history. These papers, which 
are well arranged, bound, and indexed, are now being in x>art 
calendared by Professor MacMechan, of Dalhousie College. 

There is another class of material which I think has not 
been sufficiently studied by students of the political and com- 
mercial history of the colonies in the eighteenth century, and 
of which I should like to say a word in closing. We are all 
aware of the close connection existing between the political, 
military, and economic aspects of our history; but I have felt 
sometimes that we have not laid sufficient stress upon the 
religious influences. Some indications noted in studying 
phases of the period inclined me to believe that certain phases 
of the conflicts which make u^) so important a part of the his- 
tory from 1G90 to 1750 may find a partial explanation in the 
growth of new religious sentiments and in the entrance into 
the field of the missionaries of the'Society for the Propagation 
of the Gospel. I can only hint at my suspicions here; the sub- 
ject is worth keeping in mind. The great collection of church 
documents is that of Bishop Perry, consisting of 2 octavo 
volumes for Connecticut, and 5 quarto volumes, 1 each for 
Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Dela- 
ware. These volumes contain largely letters and reports, 
mostly signed, but some anonymous, from missionaries and 
others of the society, which was chartered in 1701 and con- 
tinued the pay of its nussionaries until 1785. In the same 
volumes are also to be found letters written from the colonies 
to the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London. 
Unfortunately Bishop Perry did not print all the documents in 
full, and the volumes are to a considerable extent made up of 
extracts. This fact will send the careful student back to the 
collection from which Bishop Perry got his material. This col- 
lection, consisting of 18 large folio volumes of manuscripts, is 
that brought to America by Dr. F. B. Hawks in 1836, and at 
present in the possession of the registrar of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in New York. But the copies contained in 


these volumes are not complete. Iii the Journal of the Gen- 
eral Convention for 1838 is contained Dr. llawks'sown report, 
in which he says that he made copies from the manuscripts in 
Lambeth and Fulham and of those papers only that seemed 
to him *' valuable and important." In the case of the S. P.G. 
Manuscripts ho says : ^' 1 read the whole and caused transcripts 
to be made of such portions as were useful in illustrating our 
history." From this it is evident that Dr. Hawks^s work may 
need to be supplemented by a further examination of the ma- 
terial in London if the student be convinced that such 
examination would be worth the while. What to Dr. Hawks 
or Bishop Perry (with church interests in mind) seemed ^* unim- 
portant" may prove to be very important to the student with 
other questions before him, though, at the same time it must 
be added that so far as a comparison of the Ilawks' papers 
with the originals has been made nothing of especial value 
has been found to be omitted. The S. P. G. papers consist of 
(1) 2(1 volumes of entry books, in which were made exact 
transcripts of the letters received from 1701 to 1736; (2) a 
series of original letters, roughly bound and rather badly 
classified, (covering the period to 1799 and inc^Iuded in 23 
volumes; (3) the Journal of the society fnmi the beginning, 
well kept and carefully indexed. 

My time has not allowed me to do more than touch on cer- 
tain aspects of the period from 1090 to 1750, and to call atten- 
tion to certain classes of historical material that are indispen- 
sable in writing its history. The printed sources are gener- 
ally known to scholars and are accessible. I have endeavored 
to Lay especial stress upon the manuscri]>t sources which my 
own experience has shown me are most useful* The period is 
an excellent one for the investigator, but, owing to the absence 
of striking incidents and critical movements, is not altogether 
an easy one. It is a period that must be studied and under- 
stood as a whole, for the ])hases of change, and development 
are often bidden and the forces at work often slow-moving 
and obscure. 




Professor, Columbia rnircraity. 



By Hrrdert L. Osgood. 

Lord Acton, in his faraons inaugural lecture, has selected 
the American Eevolution as, in his opinion, one of the few 
historic events of which we have, in the main, a view so clear 
and satisfactory that they << show here and there like Pacific 
islands in the ocean." Whether or not that statement can be 
fully and truthfully made concerning the history of the Eevo- 
lution, it certainly can not be made concerning the period 
which immediately preceded it. The seventy years lying 
between 1690 and 1760 is to a large extent an unknown period. 
Save upon the external history of the French and Indian 
wars, absolutely no satisfactory work of a general character 
has been done. Our historisins come up to that period with a 
fairly full and comprehensive narrative, and then they become 
scrappy, inconclusive, and largely worthless. Bancroft's treat- 
ment of the colonial period, as a whole, is little more than a 
sketch, and he disposes of British administration in the eight- 
eenth century, so far as it was not directly concerned with 
military affairs, in about three chapters. The last two volumes 
of Mr. Palfrey's work are the weakest of the five, and there 
are other reasons for this besides the effects produced by sick- 
ness and age. The stream of Mr. Doyle's narrative, which 
began with so broad and even a flow, seems to have lost itself 
somewhere in the desert of the middle colonies, and, we fear, 
will never even reach the opening of the eighteenth century. 
We hope he has not been diverted and delayed by efforts to 
prove the survival and extension of Dutch institutions and 
influences in America. Mr. Fiske is the only historian who at 
present boldly undertakes to span the gulf, and it will be inter- 
esting to see how strong and beautiful may be the structure 
which he will throw across it. If in the meantime w<e fall 
back upon the writings of the State historians, we shall find 



tbat they either fail us altogether or show their worst limita- 
tions and defects within the period of which we are speaking. 
The simple fact of the case is that we have in print scarcely 
an approximation to a satisfactory treatment of American his- 
tory in the early eighteenth century. This being true, we may 
surmise that the history of the colonial revolt may not have 
been quite so satisfactorily written as Lord Acton thinks; for 
it is hard to understand how, if our knowledge and treatment 
of the previous seventy years are so imperfect, all the elements 
in the Kevolution at its close could be thrown by the historian 
into proper relief. It is open to one who is skeptically inclined 
to believe that this has not been done, and that it will be 
impossible — as it has been impossible in the past — to write a 
satisfactory history of the Revolution till the half century 
and more which preceded it shall have been thoroughly 

But more than this may truthfully be said. It is true that 
a vast literature upon the colonial period exists and that meri- 
torious efforts have been made to deal with certain parts and 
phases of the subject. The historical societies of the country 
have devoted their attention chietly to this portion of the tield 
of American history. The writers of histories of tbe common- 
wealths have expended their efforts upon it. Biographies 
exist in considerable abundance. Local histories have been 
issued in large numbers from the presses of the Northern and 
Middle States. There have been editors and collectors of 
documents and sources and materials of all kinds. There has 
been no lack of zeal or labor. Some critical acumen has been 
shown in the treatment of the material immediately at hand. 
In some instances cooperative effort has been enlisted on a 
large scale for the elucidation of the entire period or of por- 
tions of it. At least four historians of large acquirements and 
abilities have traversed the period or are in process of travers- 
ing it. Still another, by his genius and industry, has thrown 
a Hood of light on the relations between the colonies and new 
France. Foreign as well as American historians have borne 
an honorable part in the work. 

But when all has been said which it is possible for a just or 
generous critic to say in approval of the work accomplished, 
or of the spirit of those who have devoted themselves to it, it 
still, I think, remains true that the colonial period of Ameri- 
can history is not well understood. The reader of the books 


written upon it will find himself contemplating a multitude of 
events, many of them petty, none apparently of very great 
importance, some occurring on one side of the Atlantic and some 
on the other, and between them all he will often fail to discern 
any clear connection. Those events which occurred on this 
side of the ocean he will find distributed among about twenty 
colonies, all of which are treated as if their organizatiou and 
the trend of events within them were much the same. The 
history of each colony is often treated ns isolated or connected 
only with that of its immediate neighbors; that they all played 
a part in a common development, and just what that develop- 
ment was, are facts which have never been clearly brought out 
The history of the colonies outside of New England has been 
very imperfectly treated, and New England ideas have too 
much dominated the views taken of conditions existing within 
them. In short, until recent years the old-fashioned general 
history has held the field to the exclusion of everything better, 
a type of history which has become antiquated. The State 
history still is of that character. It stands somewhere between 
annals and well-digested historical composition, usually nearer 
the former than the latter. Its author has, as a rule, failed to 
distingaish between the really important and the insignificant 
factfi and forces with .which he has had to deal. Petty local 
details have often, if not usually, occupied a position on his 
pages of prominence equal to the leading world movements 
in which his colony bore a humble share. Little power of 
selection or of logical criticism has been shown in his treat- 
ment of his material. Intense local patriotism usually existed 
in his mind, but of satisfactory knowledge of the history of 
the world in general, of the relation in which his subject stood 
to it, of the history even of colonization, he has shown little 
knowledge. Of training in the collecting, sifting, arrangement 
and presentation of historical materials he, as a rule, has had 
none. With such work as this, worthy and useful though it has 
been in its day, we can no longer be content. In the interest 
of American history in general the greatest need to-day is the 
critical investigation and exposition of the colonial period as a 
whole and with a view to the ascertainment of its position in 
the general history of the world. Besides the much more 
extensive printing of the documentary sources, we need in the 
treatment of this period correct general ideas and an abun- 
dance of them. The material which is accessible and that 




which can be made so should be fused together, so that the 
meaniug which it contaius may be revealed. This can be done 
by keeping in mind what the essential nature of this period is. 

In the study of the first two centuries of our existence we 
have to do with the history of special jurisdictions and of 
their relations to the sovereign power from which they sprang 
and by which they were in a measure controlled. As it is at 
the same time a period of origins, it is remotely analogous in 
character to the old Germanic Empii:e, to France under the 
Capetian line of kings when the crown and the feudatories were 
in conflict; still more remotely to England in the later Saxon 
period, when the central power was struggling against centrif- 
ugal tendencies. In treating of the history of anyone of these 
periods it would be absurd to fix attention exclusively upon 
either the feudatories or the power which claimed and was try- 
ing to assert sovereignty over them. Both should receive that 
share of attention which accords with their importance in the 
system. The same is true of the history of our colonial period. 
It was a period of attempted empire building, and the imperial, 
as well as the colonial, side of the subject should be properly 
and fairly treated. 

How, then, may one deal with the colonies In order to show 
the significance of their development! .The answer to this is 
clear, that they should be treated comparatively in groups, 
classified according to the' internal political organization of the 
colonies. The grouping of the colonies according to location, 
into northern, middle, and southern, arises largely from eco- 
nomic considerations and throws little light on the fundamen- 
tal tendencies of the period. It causes more confusion than it 
removes. Only when the classification is based on political 
forms will the relation of the colonies to the great questions of 
independence and imperial control — the deepest issues of the 
l>eriod — ^be revea'ed. Two of these forms, the corporate, or 
New England type of colony, and the royal province, tended to 
become permanent; the proprietary province was in its essen- 
tial nature transitional, and in any event must have passed 
away. As soon as the tendencies within the system toward 
independence triumphed, the colonies organized themselves as 
self-governing commonwealths, substantially, that is, in har- 
mony with the form of the corporate colony. Had the opposite 
tendency, that toward rigid imperial control, prevailed, the 
royal province would have become the sole form of colonial 


government, and the provinces would in some way have been 
combined into a system ander a central colonial government. 
So far as the internal organization of the colonies is concerned, 
the most striking fact in the history of the first half of the 
eighteenth century is the development of the royal province as 
a form of colonial government. During that period, or a little 
before it, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New 
Jersey, both the Carolinas, and ultimately Georgia, became 
organized according to that plan; while Maryland wa8, as to 
government, a royal ])rovince from 1690 to 1716, and the gov- 
ernmental powers of W illiam Penn were suspended during 1693 
and 1694. To these facts are to be added, as indicative of 
the tendencies of the time, the proposals for the recall of nil 
the charters which were repeatedly made in Parliament, and the 
declarations favorable to this which were uniformly made by 
the board of trade and by many of the administrative officials 
in the colonies. A movement so general as this must indicate 
and proceed from a deep seated tendency. It resulted from the 
breakdown of the proprietary governments, both for colonial 
and imperial purposes, and from the need which the imperial 
officials felt of securing a well-ordered executive system within 
the colonies themselves. The moment either a corporation or 
a proprietary province was transformed into a royal province, 
the king secured within the colony in question a governor, a 
council, a surveyor general, receiver-general, attorney -general, 
a secretary, and usually a chief justice, besides other subordi- 
nate offici£ds, who were appointed directly or indirectly by 
himself. The gain thus for the purposes of imperial adminis- 
tration was most important. The royal province, for the rea- 
son that it had a royal executive system, was the only form of 
colonial government which was fitted for the attainment of 
imperial objects and ends. Its development on so large a scale 
affords the strongest proof that the administration of colonial 
affairs, in spite of the neglect of Walpole and the inefficiency 
of Newcastle, tended to become more systematic and contin- 
uous. Its character as an institution, its relation to the home 
government, even its external history, has never yet been the 
subject of anything like systematic study, though it is safe to 
say that there is no subject within the entire field of American 
history that is more worthy of attention. 

I would treat the royal provinces comx>aratively and from 
the institutional standpoint, with reference also to the general 


political and social conditions both in tbe colonies and in. En- 
rope which helped to condition their existence. I would study 
the origin and transmission of power within them, the organi- 
zation and powers of the executive and legislature, and tbe re- 
lations between the two as they unfolded through the entire 
history of the provinces. That constitutes the central thread 
of their history. In the light of that I would study the fiscal, 
judicial, militsiry, and ecclesiastical systems of the provinces, 
their local government and their social development, all of 
these, not only for the purpose of showing what they were in 
themselves, but how they contributed to the life of the prov- 
inces in its totality. The political and constitutional side of 
the subject, it seems to me, should be given the first place, 
because it is only through law and political institutions that 
social forces become in the large sense operative. The direc- 
tions which these -forces take are also largely determined by 
the political framework within which they act. They are ever 
modifying institutions, but it is by acting on and through 
them. The process of experimentation and change which we 
call development can be clearly revealed and the meaning in- 
herent in such process brought out only by reference to the 
action and reaction constantly going on between the conserva- 
tive and progressive tendencies in society, both of these acting 
upon and around established institutions. Guided by this 
thought, the special investigation of each one of the royal 
provinces should be looked upon as only preparatory to the 
use of the information thus obtained in a broad generalization 
which shall include all the provinces of the class. When that 
has been satisfactorily made, and not till then, can we begin 
to draw conclusions which shall be based upon adequate 
knowledge as to the relative strength of political tendencies 
within the colonies during the first half of the eighteenth 

On the one side it has been asserted that the main tendency 
in our colonial history was toward independence; on the other, 
that nothing was further from the intention of the colonists 
than independence. There is truth in both contentions, but 
which contains the larger and deeper truth remains yet to be 
determined. Before that question can be answered, we must 
know, indeed, not only what the royal province was in the 
widest sense, but what the tendencies were under the other 
forms of colonial government — ^the corporation and the propri- 
etary province — and in what direction they all moved on 


together during the entire course of oar colonial history. The 
life of a single colony often seems petty and nnimportantb 
When treated in isolation and as if in a static condition, it 
rightly appears so; but when its place is found in the general 
current through which as colonies we moved, the history of 
each one of the number takes on a new interest and signifi- 
cance. If I mistake not, the social elements which contrib- 
uted to the life of each colony — its laud Bud trade systems; 
its population, with its diversity of origin, of religious belief, 
of social custom ; its local government — will appear in their 
true place and with a new and enhanced meaning if they are 
treated, not as ends in themselves, but as means contributing 
toward the large political results of the period. We are deal- 
ing here, so to si>eak, with specimens in a collection. They 
resemble one another in their outlines and in many of their 
details, but each has its individual pecnliarities and distinct 
history, and by the variety which it contributes increases the 
interest of the whole. 

But the royal province has still wider relations than those 
we have just indicated. If one were writing the history of a 
colony of the New England type or of a proprietary province, 
he might to a large extent ignore England and confine his 
attention to local development. He would need only at inter- 
vals to refer prominently to interferences by the home gov- 
ernment. In the case of the royal province, however, this is 
not possible. The king was its proprietor and was thus in the 
true sense its executive. The governor was only, his agent, 
and subject at all points to his guidance by instructions. 
Other leading officials of the province, as we have said, stood 
in a similar relation, notably the members of the council. The 
council, besides being the governor's advisory or privy coun- 
cil, was the upper house of the legislature. Through them, as 
well as through the governor, the influence and control of the 
king was brought directly to bear on the legislature as a 
whole, the central organ of the province. An intimate organic 
relation thus existed between the crown and the province, and 
not a step of importance could be taken in the latter without 
contact with and XK>ssible direction or restraint from the 
former. It thus appears that the development of the royal 
province was closely connected with the general current of 
English colonial policy. All the great controversies by which 
the legislature and its constituents were moved were directly 
or indirectly controversies with the king. The organization 


and policy of the provincial executive can not be understood 
without constant reference to the king. Instructions then, 
though they had not the force of statute law, contained mate- 
rial of the greatest importance for the study of the period we 
are now discussing. But who, until very recently, has made 
an effort to collect them, much less to analyze and utilize their 
contents, or to study their effect f Who has ever devoted any 
si>ecific attention to the colonial agent, as another bond con- 
necting the colony with the home government f Who, save 
Mr. (loodell in the case of Massachusetts, and to an extent the 
editors of the new edition of the Pennsylvania statutes, has 
attempted to find out what the privy council did with acts of 
the provincial legislatures which were submitted for its 
approval or disapproval, and the reasons for its action f Who, 
save possibly Mr. Bancroft, has made a serious effort to famil- 
iarize himself with the correspondence which passed between 
the governors and other officials in the colonies and the various 
administrative boards and officers in England! And Mr. 
Bancroft gave to the world very scanty and imi)erfect accounts 
of his researches in this direction. These subjects must be 
classed with the purely internal history of the colonies in the 
eighteenth century as awaiting adequate investigation and 
treatment. The best discussion of the royal province in gen- 
eral with which I am ac(iuaintcd is in Long's History of 
Jamaica. For a great people like ourselves, it is somewhat 
humiliating to have to resort to an historian of a little West 
India island for elementary information about the most 
important form of colonial government which ever existed 
among us. 

In the second place, we must look at the period under con- 
sideration not only from the colonial but from the British 
standpoint; full justice must be done to both sides. To that 
end we need to understand better than we do what the old 
British colonial system actually was ; how and from what policy 
and under the intlueuce of what ideas the affairs of the colo- 
nies were administered ; what was the scope of the rights which 
the home government had over them; how far these rights 
were exercised and to what extent they were allowed to lie 
dormant. This matter should be treated not as something 
foreign to the colonies, but as a part, a condition of their exist- 
ence. The acts of trade, for example, were a natural and 
necessary phase in the development of colonization, not, as 


Bancroft persists iu calling them, ''a badge of servitude." 
Under the conditions which then existed, it is impossible for 
a rational man to suppose that England could have main- 
tained a system of trade relations with her colonies which 
would have been less burdensome than she did uphold. The 
great need in the treatment of this subject is adherence to 
the principle of historic relativity, and a genuine effort to 
show what the policy was and how it worked at the time, 
rather than to pass hasty judgment upon it based upon latter- 
day ideals. 

But the old British colonial system was much more than a 
commercial system. It had a political side as well. The board 
of trade, as authorized by its commissioners, not only exer- 
cised a superintending care over commercial relations, but it 
transacted quite as much business of a political and general 
administrative character. In order to an understanding of the 
British colonial system the first requisite is an investigation 
of the i>owers and relations of the officials and boards in Eng- 
land which were concerned with colonial affairs. This was the 
madiinery through which control over the colonies was main- 
tained. We need to know not only what their functions were, 
but the actual history of their administrative work. In this 
way only shall we qome to understtind what the traditions and 
spirit of the old Elnglish administrative system were, and be 
able to compare it with the spirit and traditions which were 
growing up within the colonies. Monographs upon the his- 
tory of the privy council, the secretary of state, the board of 
trade, and the other boards in their relations with the colonies 
would be most interesting and valuable. 

The record of the work of these functionaries in the various 
lines of governmental activity constitutes the history of 
imperial control over the colonies), and is, taken in its totality, 
the history of the British colonial system. When we fully 
know what the various organs of the British Government did 
iu relation to the colonies in the domains of ecclesiastical, 
commercial, military, and judicial affairs; what control they 
exercised over colonial legislation, and, to crown the whole, 
in what ways and how far the sovereign control of Parliament 
was exercised, we shall ucderstand what tlie British colonial 
system was. Nothing short of that will reveal satisfactorily 
the position held by the colonies under the superintending 
power of the home government within the growing British 


I tbiuk some of ub have long felt, that there are stores of material usefol 
to Htudents of American history which lie in scattered items all through 
the volames of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, which therefore 
are much less aned than otherwise they would be. I dare say Professor 
Andrews, and perhaps others, would be glad to know that in the next 
report of the Historical Manuscripts Commiasiou will be given at very 
considerable length a list of all the Items, of all thu indications, relating 
to American history which are to be found in those 19 quarto and 66 
octavo volumes. 

The things that I had in miud to say came to my mind mainly, I think, 
in conni'ction witli the problem of suggesting proper subjects for disser- 
tations, yet it may be that much of it will be equally applicable to all 
work of research by young historical students. 

I have had the feeling that there was a certain danger that professors 
and older historical students, in niaklug up their minds its to what were 
the greatest gaps in the present ntate uf our knowledge, should immedi- 
ately assume that those gaps ought to be HI led by the work of the young 
historical students; that if a research is needed it is therefore an appro- 
priate work for the young historical student. Now, very often that is the 
case, though very often it seems to mo that it is not the case. Often the 
youDg student is started by his own impulse, or by that of some one 
older, upon a research in which the nmterialH will all lie in a source of 
one class. Suppose, for inrttance, that the material for the study is in the 
executive Journals of tlio United States Senate. This work may need to 
be done, but tho young man, whilo doing it, is not given that full intro- 
duction into historieal method that he should acquire at that particular 
time. My reason for :ir};ing that objection, which perhaps is not always 
appreciated, is that in very many cases, and I am not sure but that in the 
majority of cascH, that special piece of research is likely to be the one 
piece of extensive historical investigation in which the young man will 
engage. While he is being trained we constantly think that we are train- 
ing him to be an investigator and u writer. He gets his degree and, if for- 
tunate, becomes a professor, and then he tiuds that he has too much to do; 
that he is too fiir from libraries to do much more historical research and 
writing. It is unfortunate that it should be so. He should be encour- 
aged, always after, to bridge over that dangerous period in his mental 
development which accompanies the beginning of his hard work of teach- 
ing. Hut, neverthciesH, it is often the case, and I think therefore that we 
should provide that that piece of hlMtorlcal re8earch upon which he is 
first set should be something which will give him varied development. 

So the bulk of what I have to say is in. one proposition, that the appro- 
priate subjects for historical investigation on the part of Juuior men 
ought, wherever possible, to be such as will lead them into a considerable 
variety of sources. All the emphasis this morning has lieeu placed upon 
subjects of institutional history. Subjects in iuHtitutional history are 
very fru(|ueutly open to the objection that the materials for them lie too 
much in sources of one character. The reason that they have been so 
much In favor as sulijectH for doctoral dissortatiouH or for the work of 
junior men is, I suppose, that we have had the feeling or they have had 
the feeling that subjects of political hintory were things for which they 


were hardly ripe; that it reqaire«l a contact with aifairs, or, at any rate, 
a long continued maturity of historical and political thought, to enable 
them to grapple with those more complex things. But I think that no 
one can have listened to the inangnral address which we heard with so 
much pleasure last night without being impressed with the still abiding 
value and importance of this very human element in history, and regret- 
ting that anyone sl^ould occupy himself too much with subjects of his- 
tory which lie so largely iu the abstract as many subjects of institutional 
history do. 

I think there are some escapes from this dilemma. I think we are not 
shut up entirely to the dilemma of institutional subjects which lie largely 
in sources of a single sort, or subjects of political history which are 
beyond the range of young men. 1 should go beyond my five minutes in 
this discussion if I were to try to suggest many of them. I will suggest 
one which seems to me extensive and which seems to me to offer a good 
many opportunities for young meu and to be based very frequently upon 
a considerable variety of sources ; and that is, that the young student be 
encouraged to take for a topic a biography of Just the right sort; I mean 
by the right sort (if a young man must be occupied, as most must, with 
American history because the materials are so much more accessible), the 
life of one whose career had its constant connections with both America 
and Europe, if possible with America and with several countries of 
Europe, so that he may be led into the pursuit of the sources of European 
history in several countries and of American history if it be possible. 
Or that he be given the life of some colonial governor, who, like Nichol- 
son, was governor of several colonies, that he may be led at least to 
familiarize himself largely with sources of colonial history in several 
provinces. To illustrate what I mean I may take two or three instances 
which I have suggested to my students because I thought that education- 
ally they would be valuable though I can not say there was enormous 
nved of their being done. One such is Barb^-Marbois, for instance; sup- 
pose the student takes up the career of this man; he is obliged to go into 
the history of Santo Domingo; he is obliged to go into the history of the 
diplomacy of the United States Just after the Uevolution; he is obliged 
to go into the history of the French Revolution and the history of the 
Empire, into the history of the Louisiana cession, into the history of 
the Restoration, to a certain extent. And, to take another example, of 
another sort, take the brothers Jasper and Israel Mauduit; the man who 
pursues their history is led into the history of the German War and the 
foreign policy of England during the Seven Years' War; he is led into 
English colonial and commercial history, and the history of the Dis- 
senters; he makes a contributiou to the history of colonial agents, in the 
course of his study. Or, for instance, take the career of Miranda, cer- 
tainly a very interesting, very pictorial, very Juicy subject for a man to 
occupy himself with. That will lead him into the history of Spanish 
America, the history of Spain, the history of France, of the Nootka Sound 
affair, of Pitt's administration, of the French Revolution, through a very 
important and interesting epoch, and into the history of the United States. 

Another variety of such subjects, that rest upon a number of sources, 
are those topics in the history of religion iu the United States which have 


been spoken of, Amerioan ecolesiastlcsl history bus been mainly treated 
as if it were a history of ecclesiastics ; as if it were a history of denomi- 
nations composed exclusively of clergymen, whereas, there is no country 
in the world where religions affairs have been so largely in the hands of 
the laity, and where religious and civil history have been so connected ; 
and the stndy of many n topic in that field would be, I think, broaden- 
ing and fructifying to the mind of the young student if he never wrote 
anything else. 






By Frank Strong. 

The traDsplanting of people bas been a favorite method of 
solving difficnlt questions as to political sovereignty and the 
occupation of territory. This method was pursned against the 
Jews and was the one practically used by the Romans in 
their conquest of the world. So the occupation of the New 
World by England, France, and Spain had this idea at the 
bottom. England cm])loyed it in a stern fashion with the 
Acadians in 1755, and the spread of the United States from 
the Atlantic to the Pacific was a recurrence in some sort of 
this old principle. This method was early applied to the Irish 
problem, and renewed applications of the method made the 
fate of Ireland depend in some measure upon New England. 

The danger to New P]ng1and under discussion consisted in 
the removals and attempted removals of New England iieople 
to other countries between 1635 and 1660. The gravity of the 
danger to new communities not yet thoroughly rooted lay in 
the fact that these were organized movements, in the main, 
whose result would be a more or less general depopulating of 
New England. The subject naturally falls under three heads: 
(1) Early removals of New England people to the West 
Indies; (2) attempts by Cromwell to transport New England 
people to Ireland; (3) attempts by Gromwell to transi>ort 
New England i)eople to Jamaica. 

The causes of the early removals were both economic and 
religions, although the first was by far the more important. 
We shall be in error if we suppose that all of the early set- 
tlers in New England were satisfied with their lot. Keligious 
motives, to be sure, weighed heavily with them and they 
regarded New England as an asylum for God's chosen people. 
Nevertheless, one great cause of the early settlement of New 



England was tbe desire of the colonists to better tbeir worldly 
condition. They were, therefore, much impressed by the unfa- 
vorable elements of poor soil, harsh climate, laclc of capital 
and of material for export trade. The New England theoc- 
racy, with its limiting of the franchise to those in church fel- 
lowship, had weight in the widely prevalent discontent, but 
the religious element did not in general lend to removals oat 
of New England, but to changes of location in New England, 
The emigration to the Connecticut Valley from the towns about 
Boston, which was the earliest phase of this whole movement, 
illustrates in part this truth. 

The economic conditions leading to removals were poor soil, 
harsh climate, lack of capital and of commodities for export, 
and the falling off of emigration. The most important proxi- 
mate influence was the last, which made such products as the 
settlers had to dispose of nearly worthless. From 1620 to 1640 
the influx of settlers into New England was large and con- 
stant. This kept i>rice8 high and conduced to the general 
prosperity. When the contest between Charles I and Parlia- 
ment took on definite form, the emigration to New England at 
once fell oft', prices declined, and ruin stared them in the face.' 
This continued for about twenty years, and during this time 
all the most serious attempts were made to depopulate New 
England. The threatened exodus was alarming enough to 
induce the leaders there to attempt to suppress it, and the 
whole disturbance was much more profound than is generally 
supposed. Massachusetts leaders, especially, were very jeal- 
ous of any attempts to show destitution in New England, or 
that the soil was poor and conditions hard. A curious exam- 
ple of this is found in the case of Pratt's Apology, written in 
1635. Pratt was a physician of Newtown, or Cambridge, and 
wrote a letter to England saying that there was nothing in 
Massachusetts but rocks and sands and salt marshes. The 
court of assistants heard of the letter and forced Pratt to 
make a written apology to the court.' 

But a much more important man than Pratt had engaged in 
the attempt to withdraw people from New England. Lord 
Say and Sele was making great efforts to get settlers to Old 

I Winthrop, Hist, of New England, II, 103. " Tho Builden fall of land and cattle and 
scarcity of foreign commodities and money and tbin access of people from England pat 
many into an unsettled frame of mind, who concluded no prospect of subsisting here and 
made haste to get to tho West Indies." 

'Maao. Hist. Soc. Colls., second series, Vol. VII, p. 126. 


Providence Island oif the Mosquito Coast, which had been 
granted to Pym, St. John, Lord Say, and others.' 

There was some very spirited correspondence between John 
Winthrop, then governor of Massachusetts Bay, and his lord- 
ship on the subject of the attempt to break up the Massachu- 
settH colony. Winthrop wrote a sharp letter to his lordship 
because, as he said, '' It had come over by divers letters and 
reports that Lord Say did labor by disparaging this country 
to divert men from coming to us, and so to draw them to the 
West Indies."' Lord Say answered in a long and caustic 
rejoinder, in which he accused Winthrop of doing just what 
his lordship was charged with. He did not deny making an 
attempt to get men from New England to the West Indies, but 
did deny using any unfair means. He had merely used his 
own judgment and thus <^ persuaded men to think of a more 
southerly part of the continent."^ He shows very clearly tliat 
he considered New England in the light of a temporary refuge 
for the Puritans and could see no reason why they should not 
now think of moving. This idea was more or less commoii in 
England for it was also held by Gromwell. 

liord Say's efforts led to considerable disturbance in New 
England. Winthrop is the authority for the fact that about 
1639 many began to inquire about southern points and so 
made New England disesteemed.^ He says in substance that 
those that had taken little root in New England were so capti- 
vated by the ease and plenty of the West Indies that they 
sold their estates to transport themselves to Providence. 
The dangerous feature, however, was that these people gave 
as their reason for removal that they could not subsist in New 

The leader in this movement was John Humphrey, whom 
Winthrop calls a ^'man of special parts.". He labored hard 
to get recruits while the general court looked askance and 

* The iolAod of Old Providence, or Catalina, was granted to the goveruur and company 
of adventurers for the Plantation of the Island of Providence, Henrietta, and adjacent 
islands. The first settlement was made in 1830. See Cavaliers and Itoundheads. N. D. 
Davis, p. 133. 

> Life and Letters of John Winthrop, by Robert C. Winthrop, p. 248 ; Winthrop, Hist of 
New England. 1, 401. 

* Same. App. VIII. p. 422. 

« History of New Kngland, I, 309, and II, 103. 

*In this conneution see Winthrop, Hist, of New England, II, 113. "Corn scarce at end 
of second month: many families in most towns had none to eat; ate clams, muscles, and 
dried fish.*' 

HIST 98 6 


tried to dissuade them. Many persisted, but bad so much 
difficulty in getting a ship to transport tliem that Winthrop 
thought them crossed by the hand of God. 

Both Endicott and Winthrop were very much disturbed by 
the threatened movement. About ;L639 the material condition 
of Massachusetts was so bad' that Winthrop and othe;*s 
advocated sending an agent to England to raise money and 
men for New England. They submitted their plan to Endi- 
cott at Salem but he strongly opposed it; fost, because it 
would confirm Lord Say and others in their judgment that 
New England could not longer subsist without Old England, 
especially in view of the forwardness of divers persons in 
New England to remove to the West Indies on the ground 
that they could not otherwise support their families; second, 
because the agents proposed by Winthrop were unfit for the 
reason that they, too, were infected with the desire to remove.' 
Hubbard says that the movement existed as late as 1645 to 
1650, and that '^many began to inquire about southern points, 
Virginia and the Caribbee Islands, and especially the Isle of 
Providence, which was much sought after. Many sold their 
estates in New England to pay for transportation of themselves 
and families to that Spanish island of which Lord Say and 
Sele was now Governor." Pressure was brought to bear and 
some turned back on the plea that their going would dis- 
courage others of their brethren in New England and expose 
themselves to a powerful enemy and a new climate. In the 
meantime a church was founded at Providence which begged 
for assistance from New England, and many were drawn there 
on this plea. John Humphrey and four or five other men of 
note, being thwarted in their attempts to get a vessel to trans- 
port them, went to England. 

A colony of considerable size seems to have gone to Barbadoes 
about 1646 or 1647. Bichard Vines, a physician and Gorges' 
agent in Maine, left New England in 1645 or 1646 and went to 
Barbadoes. He was a friend of Winthrop's and kept up a 
correspondence with him, from which it appears that several 
people, evidently from Massachusetts and well known to 
Winthrop, had settled there.^ About this time Winthrop 
wrote to his son John about various matters at home and in 

I See Hist, of Guilford, etc., by Bernard Stciuer, iip. 68 and 69, as to conditloii of alfaln 
in New England and the tendency to return to England. 
> Mass. Hist. Coll., 4th ser., VI, 138. 
* Hutchinson, Papers, etc., 1, 222 and 223. 


Boglandy bat in the postecript be adds: << Captain Wall came 
this day from Barbadoes. Mr. Allen and all our neighbors 
were safe arrived. • • • Mr. Parker/ the minister, and 
Mr. Long, who married Oaptain Hawkins's daughter, are dead 

Lucy Downing, sister to John Winthrop, writes to Winthrop, 
jr., from Salem : ^ ^^ My two sons, Jo and Bobin, I bless God, 
are safe returned" (i. e., from Barbadoes), and goes on to say 
that one of them contemplates a return to the West Indies. 
Other parts of the letter give a vivid picture of the destitution 
in New England and of what was forcing people to the West 
Indies: ^^ We have little news stirring, but where we shall get 
bread at the spring of the year is the general project. • • • 
Onr stilling I think might be pretty strong but that all the rye 
was eaten up almost before the Indian was gathered."^ 

The general spirit of unrest seems to have affected John 
Winthrop, jr., as well. When George Downing went abroad as 
religious instructor of seamen, there was some arrangement 
between the two that Downing should look carefully into the 
diftlerent West India islands as places to settle. Downing 
fulfilled his part of the bargain, and in his correspondence says 
in substance that he has looked up St. Christophers, Barbadoes, 
Antigua, and Nevis. He is sure that Captain Ashton, governor 
of Antigua, would give Winthrop any encouragement the island 
afforded. He also says: ^^Had I conjectured of your coming, 
I should have stayed either there (Nevis) or at Antigua." He 
thought that New England servants would be none of the 
fittest for those parts, and advised Winthrop to look elsewhere 
for servants.' 

The rush to the West Indies did not last long, although it 
affected Old as well as New England, flmanuel Downing 
wrote to John Winthrop, jr., from London, May 6, 1645: "The 
people generally here now begin to disrelish the West Indies 
(as I wrote your father) and turn their faces toward New Eng- 
land, which is in better credit among all sorts and degrees 
than it hath been for some years paat."^ That the matter was 
not more serious is due to the firm stand taken by Winthrop 

> This is a person spoken of by Richard Vines. 

* John Winthrop, Life and Letters, R. C. Winthrop, II, 383. 


«Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 5th ser., 1, 86. 

•Mais. Hist. Soo. CoU., 4th ser., VI, 536. 

•Ibid, 63. 


aod other leaders in Massachasetts against Lord Say and Sale 
and all who attempted to misrepresent the condition of affairs 
iu New England. 

Another thing that diverted the flow from the West Indies, 
although it did not help New England, was that the momen- 
tous struggle in England was absorbing their attention, and 
those who removed went back to the mother country to cast 
in their lot with Parliament. This number must have been 
considerable, for the Massachusetts general court, in its peti- 
tion to Parliament after the navigation act, calls attention to 
the fact that Massachusetts had sent over men to light for 
Parliament, besides those who went voluntarilyJ Some of 
these, Winthrop says, were men of chief rank.' 

But the execution of the King brought a breathing spell and 
opened the way for the overmastering ambition of Cromwell. 
He seems to have been in a general way friendly to New Eng- 
land, yet, as far as the continuity of the state already estab- 
lished there was concerned, New England had much to fear 
from Gromwell. His interest in New England was in great 
measure selfish, and New England was suspicious of the Pro- 
tector, and careful to hold itself aloof. Therefore, while he was 
proclaimed by Stone in Maryland, he never was in New Eng- 
land. Cromwell's attitude toward colonies in general did not 
depart from the traditional colonial policy of the time, and no 
act of his official life indicates that his colonial policy, if he 
had lived to carry one out, would have been enlightened or 

From the time he was sent to conquer Ireland, Cromwell 
never relinquished the idea of transplanting New England 
pex)ple to the Old World, or to some other place in the New 
where they would minister to his ambition. If he had suc- 
ceeded, the state then well started would have been either 
annihilated and the development of this part of North America 
greatly delayed, or the whole character of the government, the 
whole moral, intellectual, and religious aspect of New England, 
would have been changed. Cromwell, long before he came to the 
head of the Government, had a plan of his own for the settle- 
ment of the Irish question. In fact, he went ahead as if he 
were already the sole authority in the Government, and it was 
natural that Gromwell, with the consent and approbation of 

> Hutcbinnon, Hist, of MMnachasetU Bay, 2d od., p. 516. 
s Winthrop, Hist, of New EuglAod, II, 18L (year 1643). 


Parliament and the Puritans in general, sboald fall back on 
the old system of transplautiup: in connection with Ireland. 
His plan included, first, the depopulating of Ireland by trans- 
lM)rting the inhabitants in great numbers to the Continent, 
New England, Virginia, and the West Indies, the men to serve 
in the French and Spanish armies, the women and children to 
be sold as slaves in the New World ; second, the refilling of 
the island with a thrifty, industrious, and stable population 
which should at the same time revive trade and industry and 
be satisfactory to the Puritanism of the time. 

The reason Cromwell turned to New England people is 
plain. They were Puritans of approved metal ; they had been 
schooled in adversity and had demonstrated their ability to 
overcome great difficulties in the settlement and development 
of a country. Late in 1649 or early in 1650 he began system- 
atic efforts to get New England people into Ireland. Ho x.rote 
to New England for settlers and especially for missionaries. 
To whom he addressed himself can only be conjectured. There 
is no trace at this time of correspondence between Cromwell 
and anyone of Massachusetts except John Cotton, to whom 
Cromwell wrote early in October in answer to a letter of July, 
1651. Samuel Desborough, however, who was close to Crom- 
well, kept in communication with Cotton. But Cromwell and 
Cotton were brought into communication by William Hooke, 
of New Haven, with whom Cromwell was frequently corre- 
sponding just at this time. Hooke in turn was intimately 
known to Desborough, and New Haven was the colony with 
which Cromwell was most closely connected.* Probably, there- 
fore, the matter was managed by Hooke and Desborough 
through John Cotton, of Boston, and William Cobbet, of 

However that may be, six men of Massachusetts, four of 
them ministers, made answer to Cromwell December 31, 1650.^ 
They were Peter Bulkley, of Concord ; Thomas Cobbet and 
Samuel Whiting, of Lynn; John Enowles, of Watertown; 
Daniel Dennison, of Boston, and John Tuttle, of Ipswich. 
Their answer shows that Cromwell had made very definite 
offers, and to others besides the six here represented. It 
shows, too, that in his letter he had offered to do his utmost to 
further their removing thither and for their safe and comfort- 
able habitation there, as well as for their ''enjoying the Lord 

> Papers relating to MaM.sarhiiitotta Bay, p. 233. 

'Sir Henry Elliti, (>ii;dnal Letters, 2(1 aer., 3d vol., p 860. 


in his ordinances." It is clear from the letter, furtheF, that 
Cromwell contemplated a more or less organized movement, of 
which he expected these prominent men to be the leaders. 
Their answer was very cautious and indefinite as well as ser- 
vile, and committed them in no way to Cromwell. They, how- 
ever, laid down conditions for CromwelFs consideration on 
which they might be indnced to emigrate. 

These conditions, on a separate sheet of paper, accompanied 
the letter, and explain the noncommital tone.^ They were very 
hard ones to meet, and some of them oould not be complied 
with by Cromwell because he had no authority to do so, and 
what Parliament might do was a matter of coigecture. They 
are especially significant in another way. They show that 
these men contemplated as possible a general government, with 
themselves at the head; they show formulated plans, unanim- 
ity of feeling and design, a pretty thorough knowledge of the 
state of affairs in Ireland, of the conditions to be met, and the 
class of people to be afiected. It seems certain that men of 
their prominence did not write a letter of tbis kind without 
reflection and a full understanding of what they were under- 
taking. It seems certain also that the combined efforts of 
this company of men to organize an emigration to Ireland 
covered nearly a year.^ 

Why did they then suddenly cease their efforts, and why did 
this movement come to an abrupt termination? The main 
reason lies in the determined opposition on the part of the 
authorities of Massiichusetts. The anxiety and alarm pro- 
duced by this organized effort were great enough to bring the 
Massachusetts general court to an unwontedly bold and open 
stand against Cromwell. 

I They tlemnntlwl : (1) Ttio huiiio lilierty of uprnhip that they bad in New Sngland to 
Iw oatablUhcd by th« HUito of Kiigland; (2) proiier outwanl euconragementa in houaea 
and lands by Parliament or the council of atjito; (3) land fur free achools and collegea; 
(4) free clioice of a military governor fh>ni thomselvea or of nomination by them of aome 
other iiersou; (5; land in a httalthfiil part of Irvland; (6) aasiataoce ** in regard of the 
mcanncAA and inability of those godly ]>erRona who had or might Join them to t.rauaport 
themselves i'* (7) freedom for some years i'rum public chargea; (8) to have no Iriah "bat 
such as we shall like of " inhabit among them, (9) convenient time to transport them> 

* It is a strange ft^ituro that, while Cromwell was trying to induce ]ieople to go to Ire- 
land f^m America, Irish and Sooloh captives were being shipped to New England and 
Virginia as a sort of comiMonaation. See letter of John Cotton to Cromwell, 1051, in which 
ho speaks of SSoottlsh captives sold aa slaves In New England for six, seven, and eight 
years. Also, Colonial Statti Paper!*, Vol., 1574-1600, p. 407, tells of four hundred Irish 
children shipped to New England and Virginia t<i be sold as slaves. See also Coll. Origi- 
nal Paiiors relative to Hist, of Mass., p. 233. Also Colonial State PaIl•r^ 1574-1000, 
p. 401. 


Near the close of October/ 1651, the court addressed a letter 
<'To the right honorable his excellency the Lord General Grom- 
weU," to the end that no private information might occasion 
him to prejudice the colony by inviting over many of the inhab- 
itants to be transplanted to Ireland. The reasons given for 
this reqaest were set out at considerable length. Only two of 
these concern us especially; for one thing, they .were very care- 
ful to say that there were no grounds for removal on the score 
of poverty, because Massachusetts exported much grain and 
provisions.' The latter part of the letter, however, discloses 
the real cause of the action by the courts which was that ^Hhe 
great noise and general report of so many invited and intend- 
ing to transport themselves into Ireland hath occasioned some 
discouragement and weakening to the whole body of the colony, 
and necessarily brings evil report upon the land, as if defective 
in that which makes for a i>eople's comfortable subsistence,"^ 
etc. The letter shows considerable intensity of feeling, and 
was in fact notice to Cromwell to keep his hands olS'of Massa- 
chusetts. It seems fair to conclude that the disturbance over 
Ireland was very considerable, and that the plans of Cromwell 
through these ministers and others brought out the letter of 
the court in reply. The protest of the general court had the 
desired efifect, for there are no further traces of attempts by 
Cromwell on Massachusetts. 

But although any general movement had been summarily 
checked, there were individual removals, probably compara- 
tively numerous. Two of the six who answered Cromwell left 
New England. One of them, John Tuttle, settled in Garrick- 
fergus;^ the other, John Knowles, went to England and prob- 
ably to Ireland. Rev, Thomas Harrison, who was Berkeley's 
chaplain in Virginia, after being exiled to New England 
because of his Puritan doctrines, went in 1050 to England 
and then to Dublin. - John Haynes, in a letter to John Win- 
throp, jr., in 1652, speaks particularly of Col. George Cooke, 
who went from Cambridge, in the Bay, to Ireland and was there 
killed by a party of Tories.^ 

1 October 21. 

* In corroboration of this the ])etition of the court of Massacbasette in the same year 
is in point. This petition was sent on acconut of the navigation act, and shows that 
Afaasachusetts could and did export com, beef, pork, masts, clapboards, pipe staves, fish, 
beaver, otter, and other articles. Hutchinson, Hist Mass. Hay, 2d ed., p. 516 

■Hutchinson, Hist Mass. Bay, I, App. IX. 

«The Tnttle Family, by Geo. Fred'k Tnttle, p. xxxiv. 

* Mass. Hist. Soc Coll., 4th ser.. V II, 458. 


Cromwell now turned his attention toward New Haven, 
where the general despondency seemed to offer a good oppor- 
tunity. These efforts did not cease until October, 1654. 
William Hooke, Samuel Desborough, and William Ijeete were 
Cromwell's agents in the matter. Very probably the move- 
ment began while Desborough was still a resident of Guilford 
in 1650.* After Desborough left for England he induced Leete 
to write to Cromwell (some time before March, 165^-54) in be- 
half of New England, entreating him to relieve their afflicted 
and straitened condition. Cromwell made a favorable answer, 
which was enforced by a letter from Desborough March 5, 1G54. 
Leete took the matter up and spread the Protector's offer 
through the colony. Some more or less definite arrangements 
were made for removal, and the city of Oalway ' was chosen as 
a place for settlement. The form which this arrangement took 
and why no general migration resulted can not be ascertained, 
because of the loss of the New Haven records from 1649 to 

Most of the foregoing removals and attempts at removal 
took place before Parliament entered upon systematic attempts 
to settle the Irish question by transplanting into Ireland Prot- 
estants from Bohemia, the Low Countries, Germany, and New 
England. After the reduction of Ireland by Cromwell, Par- 
liament resolved to divide Ireland into three parts: (1) A part 
to be entirely an Irish plantation; (2) A part to be entirely a 
Protestant plantation ; ^ (3) A mixed plantation — English land- 
lords and msvsters, with Irish tenants and servants.^ The first 
was Connaught, including County Clare, and was selected 
because so hemmed in, the design being to surround the Irish 
with Protestants. The second was the east of Ireland, sur- 
rounded by the Boyne, the Barrow, and the sea. The third 
was the middle of Ireland, between the first and second. In 
addition to these, there was a military line of settlers called 
the ^'mile line," at first 4 miles and then 1 mile wide, running 
around Connaught in order to hem in the Irish.' 

After the act of September, 1653, the commissioners for 
Ireland tried to make use of Thomas Ilarrison to reorganize 

I Steiner, Hist of Guilford, Conn., pp. 41. 05, and 07. 

*ThiB fact wan well known. See Hubbard, liiat. of New England in Mom. Hint. Soo. 
Coll., 2d aer., 5 and 6, p. 325, etc. ; also Mather's Mapnalia, I, 85. See alao Steiner, Hist, of 
Guilford, Conn., p. 67. 

■It was to be in tlie main English, but other ProtoHtanta wore to be invited to settle 
there, provided they wore not Irish. 

^Provid<*d tiio servniits did not come nndor the rule requirinf; transportMion. 

*Tho Croiuwelliun SiatJeaiont of IrHnnd, by John P. I'rendtiPKast, 2d ed., pp. 245-248. 


the New England movement. They expected large results 
because Harrison, althoagh then in Ireland, had previously 
lived in Virginia and New England. Those who would remove 
were to have freedom of worship, convenient lands fit for till- 
ing, and secure and healthful location near the coast towns.' 
Harrison himself apparently accomplished nothing, yet some 
movement was on foot in New England between 1G53 and 1655. 
Robert Harding, of Dublin, petitioned the council of state for 
relief, alleging that he went to New England because of the 
tyranny of Charles I and Land, and from there transported 
himself and family to Ireland in 1653 because of the encourage- 
ments held out by Parliament.^ 

Proposals were received in 1655 for the planting of Sligo 
and thereabouts by New England families. Lands on the 
^^mile line" and Oyster and Coney islands, the last of but 200 
acres, were leased for one year from April 10, 1655, for such 
families as should come from New England. In 1656 several 
families went from New England to Limerick, and had the 
excise on the tobacco they brought for the use of themselves 
and families remitted.^ Other families in May and July of the 
same year became tenants on lands belonging to the state near 
Garristown, county of Dublin.* 

Bat the most determined and systematic efforts to deport 
I^ew England people were made by Cromwell in connection 
with the West Indian expedition of 1654 and 1655. After the 
ca])ture of Jamaica the Protector was confronted with the 
problem as to what to do with the island. He attempted to 
colonize it first by transporting criminals, political offenders, 
pan])ers, and abandoned women from England; second, by 
a more or less general removal of New England people to 
Jamaica. He did not trust to letters this time, but sent a 
special messenger. He could not have chosen more wisely. 

*Noto the nirailarity between those offera and the coD«litiooB set oat by the six men of 
MasMchiiMttii in llecember, 1G50. See Ma«8. Hist. Soc. Coll., 4th ser., VII, 434. 

*liatchiuaon, Hist. Mass. Bay, Vol. I, App. IX. Bills, Orifrlnal Letters, etc., 2d ser., 
Vol. in. p. 360. Colonial SUte Papers, 1574-1660, p. 466. 

* Prendergast, Cromwellian Settloinont of Ireland, pp. 245-249, 2d ed. 

^ Towns in Ireland that New England people settled in or negotiated for: Sligo— in the 
eonntry given to the Irish by laying out Connanght in 1654; in part (a) which was given 
to disbanded English soldiers. Lands on the "mile lino"— the military lino of s«'>ttlers 
ranning around Connaught. Oyster Island— in Sligo Bay. Cimey Island— in Sltgo Bay. 
Limerick— in the part divided between the adventurers and soldiers by act of Sep- 
tember 28, 1053. Garristown- 16 miles nqf thwest of Dublin, in Meath, in the part divided 
between the adventurers and Irish by act of September 26, 1653. Galway— in the part of 
Connaught given up entirely to the Irish. Cnrrickrergiis— In Antrim, on Belfast Lough. 
Antrim was one of the ton counties divithsl between the adventurers and soldiers by 
act of September 26, 1653. Dublin— in the part of Ireland reserved to the Government. 


Daniel Oookin, whom Cromwell sent on this mission, was no 
stranger to America. In 1621, when a boy of only years, he 
went to Virginia. In 1644 he removed to Boston, then to 
Cambridge, from which place he was representative in the 
general court. •It was while on a visit to England that he was 
chosen for this mission. Many circnmstances favored Crom- 
well. The colonies in general were in a very depressed con- 
dition;* the winter of 1654-55 had been a very severe one,' 
and an epidemic sickness had prevailed in the succeeding 
summer which had been very fatal .^ 

In addition great interest was taken by New England in 
this expedition and in the West Indies in general. Hugh 
Peters wrote to John Winthrop, jr., on the 3d of January, 
1654, from London: 

My Dear Friend: I have had a great longing for you here, bat traly 
things are upon suoh great nncertainty and changes that I wish yon and 
all yonr friends to stay there and rather look to the West Indies if they 

John Higginson, in his letter to Thomas Thacher, August 
25, 1654, goes on to say: *'The apprehension of such a thing 
as being removed hither (i. e., the West Indies), or of a trade 
there, doth for the present stop and stay many in these parts 
who were inclined some for England and others for Delaware 
Bay.'^ It is plain that the idea of removal had strongly seized 
on Connecticut as well as Massachusetts and New Haven, and 
that these rumors, just as the Massachusetts court feared, 
were paralyzing all colonial activities.' 

Cromwell had by this time given up his plans about Ireland 
and had hinted to Leete, Higginson, and Roger Williams his 
plans as to Jamaica. Therefore the knowledge of the matter 
was generally abroad when Gookin arrived at Boston Decem- 
ber 30, 1655.** By the terms of his commission he was to 

>See letter John Higginson, of Guilford, Conn., to Thomas Thacher, of Weymoath, 
Mass., August 25, 1854, in which lie speaks of the scarcity of clothing aocl of the general 
anxiety as to **how to provide for posterity" both in Massachusetts and Connecticot. 
Conn. Hist. Soo. Coll., III. 318; also, Koger Williams to John Winthrop.Jr., December 15, 

* Roger Williams to John Winthrop, Jr., December 16, 1654. Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll , 4th 
ser., VI, p. 280. 

■Cromwell to Mi^or-Gcneral Fortescuc*, "the last winter had been rery destructive 
and the summer so very siclcly." Also Hutchinson, Hist. Mass. Bay, I, p. 190, note. 

^Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 4 ser., VI, p. 115. Peters had previously urged Winthrop to 
come to England. (See Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Vllth, ser., p. 114.) 

•Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., Ill, p. 318. 

*For full discussion of questions connected with Now England and this West Indian 
expedition see CauHes of Cromwell's Wont Indian Expedition, by Frahk Strong, Ameri- 
can Historical Review, January, 1899, p. 228. 


acquaint the New England governors with the fact of the cap- 
ture of Jamaica, and was to describe the situation of the island 
and the valne of its resources. The religions, however, was 
the most prominent indncement held out. One chief end 
Cromwell had in view was to settle the island with people 
^' who knew and feared the Lord." Another was that New 
England x)eople, who, he said, had been <^ driven out of the 
laud of their nativity into that desert and barren wilderness 
for conscience sake," might remove to a land of plenty.^ 
This gave a rosy color to Jamaica affairs not warranted by 
the facts. 

Gookin went to work immediately on his arrival. But some 
one had been before him and had given an unfavorable account 
of conditions in Jamaica. This unfavorable news had come 
through Robert Sedgwick, then practically governor of Jamaica, 
who corresponded with John Winthrop, jr.^ Therefore all the 
encouragement that Gookin could give to Cromwell was that 
some of the principal men of Massachusetts seemed well dis- 
posed toward the project. 

The Protector had kept in particularly close touch with the 
New Haven colony through Desborough, Leete, and Higgin- 
son, of Guilford, and William Hooke, of New Haven, and felt 
especially sure of getting the New Haven people to Jamaica. 
In faMst New Haven is the only place specially mentioned in 
Gookin's instructions. To no other colony are the propositions 
in the instructions so pointedly addressed.^ These proposi- 
tions are of great interest. From them it is plain that Cromwell 
contemplated the removal of whole colonies to Jamaica; that 
the land tenure was to be free and common socage with a rent, 
after the first seven years, of one penny an acre. The colo- 
nists were to be incorporated under the great seal, with the 
privileges and immunities of any corporate city or town of 
England.^ The navigation act was to be enforced against 
them in all respects after three years, and during that time 

> loterreKiiain Entry Book, CIV, pp. 304-300. 

*Sed wick to Winthrop Jr. KovemborO. 1655: "The army is in bad condition; God's 
hand is aKsinst no in disease and very great sickness ; men die, a hundred or more every 
week; seems donbtfnl about the final snccess and whether God is in it." Mass. Hist. 
Soc. Coll., 6tb ser.. I. p. 380. 

■Cromwell says in his instructions to Gookin : "CouBidering that God by bis provi- 
dence, throngh the many difficulties and necessities they are exercised with, had put it 
into some of their hearts to seek a new plantation, and partiouUtrly New Haven, who (as 
we are Informed) are npon thoughts of removing into the Bay of De la Ware. You are 
to make them the following propositions," etc. 

*0ne article of the inatmotions provided that neither they nor their servants were to 
be drawn out into the wars except for defense of the inland. 


except as to jzroods and merchandise of the growth, prodoc- 
tion, and manufactare of the island transported into England. 
Oromweli reserved the right to appoint the governor, com- 
roander in chief, and assistants, reserving to the colonists a 
shadowy power of nomination. 

As to a civil government for the island, he was evasive. As 
long as Gromwcll lived Jamaica had only a jnilitary govern- 
ment, which fact was a sonrce of disturbance and of injury to 
the growth of the colony. He promised tlie New Englanders 
a civil government agreeable to the laws of England as far as 
conditions wonld permit; he promised, also, liberty and protec- 
tion for the churches and transportation for themselves with 
their goods and servants. The whole plan was comprehensive 
and well thonght out; 20 acres of land was to be given to each 
male 12 years of age and upward, and 10 acres to all others.' 
But here, on the whole, were no inducements to men who 
believed in a strict theocracy, had free land, and had already 
contracted the habit of electing their own governors. 

In January, 1650,' Gookin presented his instructions to the 
governor of Massachusetts Bay and some other prominent 
men, who promised their best counsel and encouragement. 
He found two obstacles in the way to success.^ One was 
reiK)rts of the unhealth fulness of the place; the other was 
a continual fear of invasion by the Spaniards. He found it 
impossible to reach the other colonies because of the impassa- 
bility of the roads. So he labored in Massachusetts until 
spring,^ as his letters to Thurloe show, and got the governor 
to call a meeting of the court in February. The court showed 
little interest and delayed its meeting until March. He then 
delivered Gromweirs letter and told his mission. They 
'thankfully accepted" the letter and authorized him to pub- 
lish in all the English colonies a declaration of the Protector's 
offer. He organized his efforts by hiring several persons in 
different places to take subscriptions.^ 

In mid-April he made the journey front Boston overland to 
Gonnecticut and New Haven, about 150 miles, he tells us, for 
the moat iiart through the woods.' He seems to have de- 
pended especially upon Theophilus Eaton, of New Haven, for 

I Instnictionii to Gookin, Penn'n Life of Sir Win. Penn, II, App. p. 665. 

<Thnrloe, IV, 440. . 

> Ibid.. 449. 

«Ibid..V, 6. 

•Gookin to Tburloe, May 10, 1056. Tliiirloc, V, 6. 


DO special inentioD is made of Oonnecticut. fle found that 
while the New Haven people did not object to the West Indies 
in general, they did to Jamaica on account of the great sick- 
ness there. As it was, he got only a few families to subscribe, 
although he felt sure that if Cromwell could get Cuba or His- 
paniola, whole chnrchcs would remove. One great hindrance 
in New Haven Gookin found to be that in his instructions he 
was not empowered to make provision or offer special encour- 
agement for ministers and men of prominence.* His letters 
show );hat New Haven was in a very depressed condition, 
being unable to support a minister if they removed. He 
asked for a provision for ministers and an annual allowance 
for a term of years for each person removing.^ 

Thei-e is no record of action of any kind by the general 
courts of Plymouth and Connecticut, nor does he seem to have 
visited Khode Island at all. There was considerable stir in 
New Haven, a session of the general court was held in May, 
1056, and the whole matter submitted to the various towns.^ 
An agent was also sent to Jamaica to find out the real con- 
dition of the island. The New Haven town meeting was dis- 
tinctly favorable to removal,^ but the general court, after a 
somewhat stormy session, decided against removal. The de- 
cision of the Massachusetts general court was also adverse, 
and, being fearful of offending Cromwell,^ they did not trust 
their explanations to Oookin, but dealt directly with Crom- 
well through John Leverett, their agent in London. Leverett 
presented their letter declining Gookin's offers, and the Pro- 
tector's resentment is very noticeable. He told Leverett that 
the people of New England had as clear a call to go to 
Jamaica as they had in the first place to go to New England. 
He reminded Leverett again that <^ that design hath its tend- 
ency to the overthrow of the man of sin." New Haven's 
objections to the lack of self-government in his instmctions to 
Gookin led him to offer through Leverett to waive the ap- 
pointment of the governor and to )>ut the government entirely 
in their hands,^ but the offer came too late. 

' Tburloe, V. «. 

•Ibid. IV, «. 

I New Haven CoL Records, 1068-1664, p. 180. 

* At water Hist New Haven Colony, p. 202. 

*"Bnt if. by the intelligenoe trmn thence of the mortality of the Bnglish there, the 
motion here anawereth not expectations, may it please year Highnees not to impute it to 
OS as declining your service, much less as disaccepting your favor and endeavors of pro* 
BfOtang what may oondnce to oar welfare. ' ' Hutchinson, Hist. Mass. Bay, 1, 10^ 

• Hntchittson, Hist. Mass. Bay, pp. 190 and 102. 


In August, 1656, Oookin reported to Thurloe that he had 
personally visited Gonnecticuty New Haven, New Plymouth, 
and the Bay, but had received the subscription of only about 
300 persons,^ for the most part young persons under family 
government, and many of them females of low estate. The 
poor people of New England, he tells Thurloe, were so reduced 
in circumstances as to be entirely unable to remove and sus- 
tain a colony.* 

> Thurloe, V, 500, Auguet 23, 1656. * Thurloe, V, 500. 





By Walter F. Princk. 

The most famous x>ortiou of Peters's book is, of course, that 
which treats of the blue laws. It is that which rouses in its 
adversaries the bitterest agonies of disgust. For sixty years 
patriotic souls have assailed the authenticity of these laws, 
and the nays have had it by a large majority. <<The false 
blue laws invented by the Rev. Samuel Peters^* are words 
which oontront us from a title page. '^The so-called blue laws 
of Kew Haven never had any existence except in the imagi* 
nation of Samuel Peters,''^ says a historian of Connecticut. 
'^ Peters not only invented the blue- law code, but he forged 
legal cases for its application,"^ another writer declares. <^The 
greater part of these probably never had an existence, as 
standing laws or otherwise,"' chimes in another, more moder- 
ately. ^^The only authority for the blue laws is this Mr. 
Peters"^ is another declaration. ^*The entire list is a fabrica- 

■Properly the second part of a paper entitled ** Peters' Book and 'Blae Laws.'" Tbe 
first part, tbe "Book," discussed tbe so-called "General History of Connecticat" as an 
interesting problem for internal analysis. Not content to accept tbe general crude and 
facile byi>othesis of falsebood to account for all its misRtatenients, tbe attempt was made 
to discover tbe antbor's sonroes and tbe use be made of tbem. Tbe result was to sbow 
bim a pbenomenal blunderer, confounding and even compounding persons, writings, 
evanta, and dates; a credulous lover of tbe curious and bizarre, like Cotton Matber, rely- 
ing mucb on popular traditions and possessing no critical capacity wbatever; a victim of 
various biases, sectarian, patriotic, and egoistic, whicli colored bis vision ; tbe possessor 
of a fatal gift of sarcasm and burner, wbicb otlcn protruded itself in tbe wrong places. 
It was found tbat tbere was at least a substratum of trutb in tbe most of bis statements 
about New England and its people, tbough some, so fsr as appears, were utterly devoid 
of foundation. Tbe motive assigned for writing tbe book was not revenge, but tbe desire 
to become bisbop in some green New England pasture of a needy and peril-environed 
flock. All references to Peters's book are to McCormick's edition of 1876 for tbe reason 
tbat this is more frequently available. 

*"Tme and False Blue Laws," J. Hammond Trumbull, Hartford, 187C. 

■'*Hist. of Conn.." S. B. Sanford, p. 43. 

*ReT. C. Hammond in Conn. Valley Hist. Soc. Papers, 1881, p. 106. 

•Cbas. Deane in Winsor's "Narrative and Critical Hist, of America," VoL III, p. 372. 

• W. L. Kingsley in Metbodlst Beview, Jan., 1878, p. 83. 

HIST 98 7 97 


tion, * * * It is the baseless invention of an embittered 
Tory," ' asserts a distinguished judge. " The blue law myth,"* 
mutters a learned professor. The list of such references is by 
no means closed with the following sweeping statement from the 
pen of a high authority: ^<The legend of the blue laws is the 
invention of Samuel Peters, a mendacious refugee, who in 1781 
published in England a ^Ilistory of Connecticut.' Included 
in this odd medley of fact and fiction are these grotesque 
enactments, which never existed except in the imagination of 
the author of this book."^ When scholars and professionals 
of such exalted rank agree so emphatically, and when those 
who have ventured to differ have defended their position so 
weakly,^ one may well hesitate before he renews the attempt 
Nevertheless we plunge and cross the fatal liubicon. 

Embodied in sentiments such as those just quoted, which 
to-day are current in the best writers and which pass almost 
without question, three propositions are distinctly discernible. 

1. The Blue Laics never existed in New Haven. — It must be 
that mental reference is had to the more quaint examples of 
Peters, for none can fail to know that some at least of the 
laws stated by him were genuine laws in New Haven. Yet 

> "Judicial and Civil Hist, of Conn.," Dwiglit Loomis and J. G. Calhoan, p. 70. 

*** Study of a Commonweal tli Domocracy," Prof. A. Johnston, p. 105. 

••'Colonial Era," Prof. Geo. P. Fislier, p. 130. 

«Suc1j as Prof. De Voro in •'Amoriianlsms," New York, 1878, p. 273, and S. J. McCormiok 
in hia preface and notes to Peters' History. See also Spragne's Annals, Vol. V, p. 196, 
where Kov. Dr. Chnpiu says, '* Among other ridiculonaly false charges made against Peters 
is this that he forged or invented the socalle<l bine laws of Connecticut^-a charge which 
is sufficiently dinproved by the fact that that celebrated code was in existence and com* 
roon use before he was bon]/' which is e(j[uivalcnt to saying a thing is so bocaase it is. 
Exception should be made of an articio by tho wvll- known historical scholsr John Gil- 
mary Shen, entitled. **Tho blue laws of Connecticut,*' and published in the American 
Catliolio Quarterly Roviow for July, 1877. I was not so fortunate as to see this essay till 
my own was nesrly completed. Its tone is calm and Judicial, but it amounts to a very 
effectual refutation of those who pornist in involving Pcters's blue laws in a general dam- 
nation. But Shou oonflued his investigation to tho codes of Now Haven and Connecticut 
given in Truiubull's book. Conseciuoutly he fails to liud the autlientication of statutes 
whose date was latter thnu tliose etnles, or whose) locus was Massachusetts. The range of 
his investigation being so cirouniscribml, he is too easily satisfied in some oases with 
mere rosemblnnces Itetwetni speeifleatlons of Peters and certain laws of New Haven and 
Connecticut, not the n^il sources of those si>ccifications. Neither did he study the codes 
of New Haven and Connecticut quite carefully enough, or he could not have written 
" Several of the otiier laws an given by Peters have some foundation, such aa those 
against fornication, adultery," etc. This is too moderate a defense for statements which 
correctly present the essential cont«^nt of tho laws on fornication and adultery, leaving 
out definition and amplification. He hud not observed the indebtedness of Peters to 
Neal. Nevertheless Mr. Shea's article is the mont critical one on the "blue laws" ques- 
tion yet printed. Ills interest is keenest in reference to laws which aflected Catholics, 
yet ho docs not seem to labor under an anti-Puritan bias. 


the language most commonly employed makes no exceptions 

2. The Blue Laws never existed in New Ungland.-r-ln vain we 
Bearch for an adinission that the laws which do not fit New 
Haven may often find their mother nest in Massachusetts, or, 
less frequently, in Connecticut Colony.' 

3, The Blue Laws were invented by Samuel Peters. — He is the 
criminal and no other to be pilloried through all ages for his 
malevolent " forgeries." 

These are the propositions which a somewhat extended sur- 
vey of tlie ground compels us to contradict. We must meet 
them scjuarely with the counter theses: 

1. Over one-half of Peters's "Blue Laws" did exist in New 
Haven, expressly or in the form of judicial customs under the 
common law. 

2. More than four-fifths of them existed, in the same fash- 
ion, in one or more of the colonies of New England. 

3. Were the "Blue Laws" shown to be Ibrgeries, Peters 
could not be made to shoulder the whole burden of guilt, since 
he derived nearly two-thirds of them directly from other 
writers on New England liistory. 

Either no one concerned lias discovered this last fact, or, 
an alternative which we can not suppose, discovering, he has 
not been candid enough to announce it to the world. It is 
extraordinary tliat none of Peters's critics should ever have 
thought of examining his sources when his book is so full of 
pregnant hints. He frequently refers to Neal's History of New 
England.^ In the second volume of this work there is an ap- 
pendix containing an "abridgement of the laws and ordi- 

*ODe geDtleman, making special denial of a parcel of the laws, giugorly admits that 
one was partly true, and iunists that another, if true, ii-as a good law anyway, which is 
quite aside from the qnestion. 

W. L. SJngsley, in "New Knglauder." vol.30, p. 248. The laws referred to are those 
ahout courtship and travel on the Sabhath, ro8])ectively, both bona tide and in force iu 
New Haven as in other New England Colonies. "And so the myth (of the New Haven 
rode of Bine LawH) grew until the last vestige of truth was lust in fable '»— True and 
False Blue Laws, J. H. Tmnibull. p. 29. 

* W. L. Klngsley (in the Methodist Review, Jan.. 1878) also says that " it is shown that 
nioch of the severe and ridiculous legislation * « * was actually truo of New York," 
etc., but never dreams of any applicability to Massachusctta. He does not say by whom 
or where it is shown. It would be bard to show this of New York, whatever may be the 
rase with ** Virginia and other Colonies to the South and West." This is very remarka- 
ble. I have searched in vain in this class of writers for more than a curt admission that 
there was something like one or two of the " Blue Laws *' in Massachusetts. Even this 
is rare. In Trumbull's notes to the Peters code (True and False Blue Laws, pp. 301-308) he 
is ready to implicate New York and Virginia, but is silent in respect to laws which were 
known to every colony in New England. 

*" History of New England/' Daniel Neal, 2 vol. London, 1747. The api>endix is in 
Vol. II, beginning p. 326. 



nances of New England to the year 1700," and here Peters 
found 28 of his "forgeries." We shall be assured of this by 
parallel i>eculiarities in the phraseology of Neal's and Peters's 
abstracts, which swerve from the wording of the original stat- 
ute.' One other law we may find reason to susx)ect was sug- 
gested by a passage in Dr. Burnaby's "Travels,"* a book 
which Peters quoted more than once. These make nearly 
two-thirds of the entire number.^ 

The proof of our three counter theses is to be found in the 
detailed examination that follows. We have chosen to change 
the order in which the 45 laws originally appeared, in order to 
classify them according to the degree of their authentication. 
As already intimated, some may be expected to refer, not im- 
properly, to common rather than to statutory law.^ It should 
be premised that Peters nowhere claimed to give the exact 
form of a single statute, but expressly calls his list a "sketch."^ 
When, therefore, we class certain statements as "unqualifiedly 
true" we refer, not to the verbal rendering, but to the facts 
contained, fiut when we declare certain others "substantially 
true" we mean that the facts, while not accurately put, are 
not essentially distorted. The figures appended indicate the 
order in which the laws were printed in the "General History 
of Connecticut." 


6. "Conspiracy against this Dominion shall be punished 
with death." This is obviously abridged from Neal, whose 
stsitement is, "Conspiracy against the Commonwealth by 
attempting an invasion, insurrection, rebellion, or attempting 
to seize any town or forts, shall be punished with death." ^ 

We read in the New Haven Code of 1656 that "If any jjer- 
son shall conspire and attempt any invasion, insurrection, or 

> The iiioHt Btrikiog iniitaiice 19 Law 29, whero Noal jierpetrat^M a remarkable blunder 
and Peters copies it. See nUo Law 24. 

* "Travels through the Middle SettlenientH of North Amerioa, 1750-60," Andrew Bar- 
nab}*. London, 1775. 

'Five more Peters might have seen in the copy of the Revised Statutes of the Colony 
of Connecticut which lay in the clerk's ofHro in Hebron. Yet we can not tell that he 
relied on more than his miscellaneous reading, observation, and tradition for their con* 
tents. Since a part of the eleven laws still n>mainlng are gounine, the field left to his 
"imagination" seems to be getting somewhat circumscribed. 

^Neal, too, puts down as "laws " what wom Judicinl cuMtoms, or forms of procedure. 

* Neal's versions also are often very different from the original statutes, but be generally 
manages to convey their essential content. 

•Neal's App., p. 332. 


public rebellion against the jarisdiction • • • he or they 
shall be put to death.'' ' This law was derived from the Massa- 
chusetts Body of Liberties.' 

8. '^Whoever attempts to change or overturn this Dominion 
shall suffer death." It will be seen that this is a correct ab- 
stract of one part of the New Haven law just referred to, 
which declares that, 'Mf any person or persons shall • • • 
treacherously and perfidiously attempt the alteration and sub- 
version of the frame of policy or fundamental Government 
laid and settled for this jurisdiction, lie or they shall be put to 
death."' So far it is but one form of the law of treason com- 
mon among nations. But the New II aven statute had a severer 
clause, threatening that ''if any person shall consent to any 
such mischievous practice, or by the space of four and twenty 
hours conceal it, he shall be put to death or severely punished." 
In other words, if any person should hear of a conspiracy and 
not report the plot to the authorities within twenty-four hours 
he might, by virtue of the New Haven law, be put to death. 
The statute on this subject in Connecticut was couched in 
terms not dissimilar. ^ 

2. '' From the determination of the Assembly ^ no appeal shall 
be made." Peters ])robably took this from Neal, who says of 
the general court, ''It may determine causes without appeal 
and cite those depending in other courts."" This was true 
enough of New Haven, Connecticut, and Massachusetts Bay. 
The New Haven code of 1G55 ^ provides for appeals from the 
plantation court to the court of magistrates and thence to the 
general court, the supreme tribunal of the colony. No further 
appeal to the King in council was contemplated or allowed. 
The several colonies regarded such an attempt as a grave 

1 Beoordi of New Haven Jnrimlictioii, 1653-64, p. 577. 

■Sec. 91. H««aachnaetta, having lenmed the expediency of paying more deference to 
the mother conntry, in March, 1681/2, inserted after "rel>eHion" thoAe words, "against 
the King's MfO^Aty, hia government here established." 8oc. Mass. Col. Records, Vol. V, 
p. 339. 

* New Haven Code of 1655. In records of New Haven Jurisdiction, pp. 577-578, ander 
title *' CaplUl Lawes." 

^General Laws and Liberties of Connecticut Colony, p. 85. Printed hy Samuel 
Green, Cambridge, 1673. The original is exree<lingly rare, but there are copies of the 
Brinley reprint in the libraries. 

■Someone has criticised the use of the word "assembly" Instead of "court," which 
was the customary one emplojred in New Haven Colony. But "assembly" waM th» 
fkmiliar term i n Peters's day . Such ntickl i ng for verbal accuracy in a professed " sketch ' ' 
la faypoeriticlam . (See Trumbull, p. 302. ) 

« App., p. 336. 

'Beoorda of New Haven Jurisdiction, 1653-64, p. 573. 


offense and visited it with heavy fines.^ Any suggestion on the 
part of the King's pinisters that it would be well to allow 
appeals was sure to be fought with might and main, as a pro- 
posal to annihilate good order and the authority of local law.' 

3. "The Governor is amenable to the voice of the people.*' 
Here we have an incomplete version of Neal, who says of the 
general court, " It may call the governor or any magistrate to 
account and censure them as the case requires."^ TheKew 
Haven code of 1655 declares its iK>wer "to require an oath 
from all magistrates, deputies or assistants, etc., in every court 
of judicature, for the faithful discharge of the trust committed 
to them, according to their best abilities. And to call them 
to account for the breach of any laws established, or for other 
misdemeanors in their places, and to censure them as the quality 
of the oflTense may require." * Now, the governor was included 
among the magistrates named in this paragraph, and all its 
provisions apply to him as well as the rest. The form of oath 
which was to be administered to him is given at the end of the 
code. If he broke his official oath or the laws of the country, 
he was amenable to the voice of the people through the gen- 
eral court.^ The fact that the governor was reckoned as one 
of the magistrates, though with specific duties and powers, is 
illustrated by a passage in the first constitution of Connecti- 
cut, " Whereof one to be chosen governor for the year ensuing 
and until another be chosen, and no other magistrate to be 
chosen for more than one year; provided always there be six 
chosen besides the governor." 

5. "The Assembly of the People shall not be dismissed by 
the Governor, but shall dismiss itself." Again, Peters had 

^Masa. Col. Recs., III., M for example. 

* A good illudtration may be found in Mass. Col. Reoii., Ill, 102. 
*Neal'8 App..]K336. 

* Fnndamentall Agrt>oment, in avc. 3, p. 569. 

* A govornor of MaHsnchusettH Bay Colony wan calliMl In qnettlon for lloenaing a liqoor 
seller on his indivi<liial responsibility. When there waa a quarrel between the magistrate 
and deputies as to their n^spcctive powers (in Massaehnsetts) the magistrates proposed 
a list of qoeMtions to the elders. Their reply to ono of these questions roads thus: "In 
case of a defect or delinquency of a roa^^istrate, the wliolo coart may remove him." The 
governor was one of the uiaj^istmteM. (See Winthmp's Journal, Oct. 30, 1644.) " The gen- 
eral conrt had authority to call * * * either court or magistrate or any person what- 
soever into question for misdemeanor.'' (Early Government of Connecticut,** Bronson, 
p. 24.) "At this court of freemen * * * tlie governor and magistrates might be present 
as culprits on trial fi>r misdemeanor," ( I b., p. 25. ) In 16U3 New Pl^nnonth enacted a law 
that if a govemorel«H*t refused to serve he was to be fined £20— a very large snm, equal 
to $500 to^iay. 


recourse to NeaFs Abridgment, wbich says of the general 
court: "This court (is) to be called by governor, deputy gov- 
ernor or court of assistants on any occasion, but (is) to be dis- 
solved or adjourned only by themselves." ' It was very true 
that the general court, in New Haven and elsewhere, dismissed 
itself, as was fitting for the representative body of a republi- 
can jurisdiction to do. The governor was not above and out- 
side of the general court, but himself a member of it, with no 
regal prerogatives to prorogue or dissolve it.^ The Massachu- 
setts Body of Liberties of 164 L guarded against such assump- 
tion of power when it declared, "No general court shall be 
desolved or adjourned without the consent of the major part 

9. "The judges shall determine controversies without a jury." 
This correctly states the procedure in New Haven. The fact 
is too notorious to need corroboration. Herein New Haven 
was unique — that it employed no jury, but decided all cases 
by a majority vote of the judges.* 

10. ^<No one shall be a freeman or give a vote unless he be 
converted and a member in full communion of one of the 
churches allowed in the Dominion." The New Haven law was 
as follows: 

That Done shall be admitted freemen « * * but sncb planters as are 
members of some one or other of the approved churches of New England ; 
nor shall any such be chosen to the magistracy, or to carry on any part 
of ciyil jndicatnre, or as deputies or assistants to have power or vote in 
establishing laws, or in making or repealing orders, or to any chief mili- 
tary office or trust; nor shall any others but such church members have a 
vote in any snch elections.^ 

Now, this law carries with it all that Peters asserted, since 
no man was admitted into the membership of approved churches 

■ Neal's ApPm p. 336. 

* ** He (the goverDor) could not acUo^mi or dissolve the coort." (Early Government of 
Conn., Bronson, p. 19.) 

* " Mass. Body of Liberties, " sec. 09. In Bibliographical Sketch of Laws of Mass. Col., 
1630-1686. W. H. Whitraore, Boston, 1890. A facsimile of the original manascript is 
here given. Section 60 of the Body of Liberties ijoints back to an ordinance passed May 
14, 1634. (See Mass. Col. lieconls, Vol. I, p. 118.) It was substantially copied in the 
constitution adopted by the first settlers of Conn., 1638-30. (See TrnmbaU's True and 
False Blue Laws, p. 57.) 

*S«e New Haven Code of 1655. In Records of New Haven Jurisdiction, pp. 570^71 ; 
Trumbull, 186-188. 

* " Reoorda of New Haven Jurisdiction, 1(S53-1664," p. 667. 


except tbose believed to be converted^ Massachusetts made 
tne same requirement.^ In 1063 it even went so far as to estab- 
lish a law ^ that no persons, whether freemen or not, who refused 
to attend church should be allowed to vote in any civil assem- 
bly whatever <^ until certificate be given of their reformation" 
in this particular/ 

13. <'19o Quaker or dissenter from the established worship 
of this Dominion shall be allowed to give a vote for the elec- 
tion of magistrates or any other officer." This is really a corol- 
lary from the 10th law, which says that none but members of 
approved churches can vote. But Peters follows Neal with a 
little verbal amplification. ''No Quaker or dissenter from the 
publick worship has a vote." ^ Later, the bars were reluctantly 
let down at the shaking of the royal fist, one at a time. 

22. ''To pick an ear of corn growing in a neighbor's garden 
shall be deemed theft." The New Haven statute, entitled 
"Burglary and theft," was similar to that of Connecticut, 
which says, in part — 

That if any person, whether ohildren, or seryants, or others, shall bo 
taken or known to rob any orchard or garden, or that shall steal away 
any grafts or fruit trees, fruits, etc., shaU forfeit treble damage to the 
owners thereof and snoh fine or corporal punishment as the court shall 
think nieet.'> 

Both colonies derived their law uix>n the subject from Mas- 
sachusetts.^ But in 1640, before New Haven had any such 

■ It is therefore diifloult to see what point Tmmbiin thinks he is iDuking in his note on 
Uw 10, reading "The law only requircis roembership of someone or other of the approved 
oburches of Now England." Trnmbuirs True and False Blue Laws, p. 202. Palfrey 
(Hist. New Kng., ii, 8) writes thus: ''In Massachusetts and Now Haven the discretion 
of the freemen as to the admission of now associates was limited by a standing rule of ex- 
clusion for all but such as had been received into full communion by some chnrob." John 
Gilmary 8hea (Am. Cath. Quar. Kev., July, 1877) calls attention to the looseness of this 
version of the law. Not membership in "some church" was sufficient, bat membership 
in some "approved church," and not only that, but of some church "approved by the 
magistrates and churches of this colony." See New Haven Code of 10&5; title, "Ecclcai- 
astical Provisions." 

* Mass. Col. Recs., Vol. I, p. 168. The date in March, 1635/0. 
SMaas. Col. Recs., Vol. IV, part 2, p. 88. 

^In Connecticut Colony there was more apparent liberality. The inhabltaDt of good 
reputation, and later, who had property qualiflcatioiia, was eligible to cltiaEenabip, on 
assent of the members of the General Court. But, as Bronson Justly observes, "it is 
safe to say that they would not assent if the candidate were a heretic, or if in practice be 
set at naught that discipline of the churches which the General Court was bound to 
maintain." Civil Govt, of Conn., p. 20. 

'Keal's App., p. 340. 

* General Laws of Conn., 1673, p. 8. 

' General Laws, 1672. The act was panned in 1646. 


statute,^ Andrew Lowe was whipped in part for stealing firnit 
from a garden.' Whether fruit or vegetables, or ears of com, 
or anything else of value growing in an orchard or garden, 
taking them without leave was deemed theft by the terms of 
the printed law, and the perpetrator was formally liable.^ 

39. ^^Fornication shall be punished by marriage, or as the 
court may think proper." Here we have a still curter form of 
NeaFs abstract, which says, '' Fornication (is) punished by 
compelling marriage, fines, or as the court sees fit."* This was 
the earlier law of New Haven, Massachusetts, Plymouth, and 
Connecticut. It was adopted by New Hampshire when it 
became a royal province.^ We quote from the New Haven 
Godeof 1655: 

If any man shall commit fornication with any single woman, they shall 
be panishedy either by enjoy ning marriage, or fine, or corporall punishment, 
any or all of these, as the court of magistrates or plantation court, duly 
considering the case with the circumstances, shall judge most agreeable 
to the word of God.** 

In 1665 Massachusetts empowered the courts, in addition to 
the usual penalties for this and other crimes, to disfranchise 
the offender.'' 

40. ^^Adultery shall be punished with death." Neal puts it, 
"If any person commit adultery with a married woman, maid 
or woman espoused, both man and woman shall be put to 
death."" Among the first laws passed in Massachusetts Bay 
was one decreeing death for adultery.^ This was in 1631.*^ 
The law found its way into the Body of Liberties ^^ and therein 
became the model for New Haven and Connecticut. Some 
effort seems to have been made in Connecticut in 1669 to 
alter it, but the court refused "to repeal or to take off the file 

1 New HaTen Code of ISSS; title. " Burglary and theft." 
*Recorda of New Haven Colony. 1638-1649, pp. 38-39. 

* Human nature mnat seldom or never have l>een vindictive enougli to proeecnte for the 
taking of *' an ear of com." Bat it remains true that by tho law that act was "deemed 
theft," there being no legal distinction between taking a single ear and taking a bushel 
of com. 

* Neal'8 App., p. 342. 

•New Hamp. Hist. Soc. Colls., Vol. VIII, p. 456. 

•Title ** Fornication." 

*Maas. Col. Bees., Vol. IV, pt. 2, p. 143. 

"Neal's App., p. 322. 

•Mass. Col. Recs., Vol. I, p. 92. 

** Jamea Brittalne and Mary Latham were condemned to death for adultery in Boston, 
1643/4. See Omitted Records in Bibliographical Sketch of Mass. Laws, Whitmore, XLII. 
Account of the case is given in WinUirop's Journal, ed. of 1700. Hartford. Pp. 326-7. 



the law which hath been so long established by the govern- 
ment of the colony." * 

42. <^A wife shall be deemed good evidence against her hus- 
band." In another part of his book Peters refers to the 
William Potter Case, "to show," he says, "the danger of 
admitting a wife to give evidence against her hasband."' It 
is probable that he added this law from his knowledge of that 
case. It is trne that Potter was convicted in part from the 
testimony of his wife, though the rest of Peters's remarks con- 
ceiiiing that trial are pitifully erroneous. No formal statute 
was necessary to enable wives to testify, but, as a matter of 
fact, this they might do in New Haven courts. 

43. "No man shall court a maid in person or by letter with- 
out first obtaining consent of her parents; 5 1. penalty for 
the first offence, 10 1. for the second, and for the third, impris- 
onment during the pleasure of the court." Neal puts it " None 
are to court a maid without the consent of her parents; 5 1. for 
the first offence, 10 1. for the second; imprisonment for the 
third till released by the county court." ^ The law of Massa- 
chusetts, dating from 1647, declares^ that any person endeav- 
oring "directly or indirectly to draw away ye affections of any 
mayde in this plantation under pretence of marriage" without 
the consent of parents or guardians should be fined £5 for the 
first offense, £10 for the second, and for the third be imprisoned 
until the court should see cause to release him. 

Connecticut borrowed this law ^' and retained it in Peters's 
day.** It was sufficiently broad to include Peters's specifica- 
tion "by letter." But the law of New Haven was very circum- 
stantial, forbidding unpermitted trifling with girlish affections 
"whether it be by speech, writing, message, • • • gifts," 
or any other way, directly or indirectly." Here, however, the 

> Conn. Col. Rec«., Vol. II, date July tf, 1609. When, at lant, tlio law wa« repealed, cul- 
prits were compelled to Htand on the gallows with rones about their necks, significant of 
the former law, and also, in Massachusetts, to wear the letter A on an outside garment 

>(ien. Hist Conn., p. 155. 

* Neal's App., p. 356. 

* Mass. Col. Koos., Vol. II, p. 212. 

> ActJi and Laws of Conn., Revision of 1702, p. 76. 

* Ibid, Revision of 1750. p. 144. 

' The case related by PetorH, pp. 214-217, lie does not declare is authentic, but prefaces it 
with the words: "The following case may be amusing." However, allowing for the 
humorous exaggeration of the story-toller, there is nothing incredible in the bottom facta 
stated, (lifts and a very polite letter such as KngliMh beaux thought it proper to send to 
young ladies, might well have been thought courtHhip Just cunningly enough devised to 
escape the law. 


first offense cost bat 40 shillings, the seoond j&4, and the third 
• a line at discretion, imprisonment, or whipping^ Oases under 
the law in the several colonies were numerous.' 

15. '^If any person turns Quaker, he shall be banished and 
not suffered to return on pain of death." Here we have a 
statement extracted from two sentences in the version of Neal, 
'^Quakers not inhabitants (are) to be imprisoned till the court 
of assistants and then banished, not to return on pain of death. 
If any turn Quakers, ^ they are to be banished the Jurisdiction 
and served as Vagabond Quakers if they return."* We have 
no difficulty in recognizing the famous law of Massachusetts, 
passed October 19, 1658,^ the culmination of a series of inef- 
fectual statutes. The original law is too long to qnote, nor is 
there need, as its purport and the bloody consequences are 
universally familiar. 

New Haven never threatened Quakers with death, but did 
promise them a choice series of imprisonments, banishments, 
whippings, braiidiugs, and perforations of the tongue, all 
expenses to be paid by the recipients of these attentions. And 
in New Haven, as elsewhere, '< Every Quaker arising in the 
inrisdictiou to be treated as a foreign Quaker." ^ This in May, 

14. '' No food or lodging shall be afforded to a Qnaker, Adam- 
ite, or other heretic." The New Haven act was passed May, 
1658, fixing the penalty for <' concealing or entertaining 
Qnaker or other blasphemous hereticks at twenty shillings an 
hour."^ It Uided not be explained that '^ entertainment" meant 
giving food or lodging. In Oonnecticut the statute on this 
subject read, << No person in this colony shall give any unnec- 
essary entertainment unto any Quaker, ranter, Adamite, or 
other notorious heretick, upon penalty of five pounds for every 

' New HATen Code of 1055. Reca. of New Haven Jarisdiction, p. 800. 

> Matthew Stanley, of Reading, was fined £5 for winning the affections of a girl without 
her parents' consent. See "£oon. and Soc. Hist, of New Eng.," p. 220. Same fine, see 
"Hist, of New London, '* p. 251 . Same fine, see Conn. Col. Recs., Vol. I, date Mar. 5, 
1644. Walter Gray was whipped for inreigling the affections of a servant maid without 
the consent of her master. See Conn. Col. Reos., Vol. I, date March 5, 1044. 

■ **If any turn Quakers *' is almost exactly copied by Peters. The language of the 
original law is very different, namely, " Every inhabitant convicted to be a Quaker." 
This is one of the cases where Peters's indebtedness to Neal is apparent. Anyone can 
easily convinoe himself by comparing the two series. 

'NeaTaApp., p. 345. 

• Maaa. Col. Bees.. Vol. IT, pt 1. p. 345 . 

*Becs. of New Haven JuriH., 1853-64, p. 240. 

'lb., pp. 238-241. ^'- 


Bach entertainment.'^ ^ Massacbusetts fined offenders 40 shil- 
lings for each hour that shelter was given to any of the obnox- 
ious classes.' These are bat types of the changes that were 
rung on the law. Prosecutions were frequent at one period, 
more particularly in Massachusetts Bay and New Plymouth, 
but with New Haven and Connecticut not exempt.^ Connecti- 
cut did not repeal the statute against entertaining Quakers 
and others till the eighteenth century had begnn.^ 

16. '< No priest shall abide in the Dominion; he shall be ban- 
ished and suffer death on his return. Priests may be seized 
by anyone without a warnlnt." We turn once more to Neal^s 
Abridgment and find, '< No Jesuit or priest (shall) abide in the 
jurisdiction. Whoever can't clear himself A'om suspicion to 
the court of assistants (is) to be banished not to return upon 
pain of death, unless by shipwreck, &c. • • • He may 
be seized by anyone without warrant."^ The first Massachu- 
setts law against priests was passed May 20, 1647. But the 
still harsher measures which Neal and Peters give in con- 
densed but not incorrectt form date in the year 1700.^ They 
consigned to perpetual imprisonment all *' Jesuits, seminary 
priests, or other spiritual or ecclesiastical persons" ordained 
by papal authority, who shouhl be found in the colony by Sep- 
tember 10 of the same year.^ If taken after escaping from 
imprisonment they were to suffer death. Also the statute con- 
tinues, ^Ut sliall and may be lawful to and for any person or 
persons to appreliend, without a warrant, any Jesuit, priest, 
missionary, or lioman ecclesiastic."" 

17. <<No one to cross the river but with an authorized ferry- 
man." Plainly, this is related to NeaPs version, which, how- 
ever, does not squint. *^No passenger to be transported 
accroHS the river but by an authorized ferryman."^ Peters's 
transcription is not felicitous, but it is hardly proper to attrib- 
ute a malign purpose to his bungling attempt at condensation. 
It is only necessary to place the emphasis properly in his ver- 
bal statement to mark the distinction which he had in mind. 

> Kevised Statuten of 1673, AcIh and Lawn, p. 28. 

* Mann. Col. Knos., Vol. IV, Pt. I. p. 308. Law paHMMl Ort., 1667. 

* Plymouth lif>vn.. Vol. Ill, pp. 180, 191, 200. IU-vm. of Jurin. of New Hav«ii, p. 242. 

* SeMHion Laws, 1706. 
■NcMils App., p. 346. 

*(}eDeral Lawn of MawH. Ray Col., ed. of 1672, p. 67. 
'Acta and UoMilvea of MaMii., Vol. I, p. 424. 

* J. Uaminond TriiinbiiU nngf^vntA that there wero nnacimontii in New Tork and Vir- 
ginia against Catholic priostM (True and Falne Uliiv Lawn, p. 3U3), but drop* not a word 
respecting Maasacliuaetta. 

•Neal's App.,p. 341. 


that between *^aii authorized ferryman "'and an unauthorized, 
unlicensed oiie.^ It is perfectly true that both in Connecticut 
and Massachusetts' there were laws forbidding any person to 
cross the river with any other than an authorized ferryman. 
One might cross in his own boat or borrow that of his neigh- 
bor's, but apparently only for the purpose of going to his work. 
If, for example, a young beau wished to take a party of ladies 
across the river in his boat to join a pleasure excursion, the 
law debarred him. Thus reads the Connecticut statute: 

Every keeper of a ferry shall have the sole liberty of the trauHportation 
of paMsengerH and their horses, from the place where such ferry is granted 
to any other ferry place, or usual ]>]ace of laiidiug. * * * Provided 
this order shall not hinder any persons that use or have occasion to pass 
in their own or their neighbor's boats or canoes to their own business and 
labour from passing accordingly.' 

21. *^The Sabbath shall begin at sunset on Saturday." 
Peters must have known this from experience, but perhaps 
the sight of a statute sketched by Keal brought it to his mind. 
Neal's words are, ^^ Drinking or siK>rting on Saturdays after 
sunset pays five shillings."^ New Haveu had a law passed in 
1648 forbidding all servile work ^^ from sunset to sunset" The 
day came when Connecticut went further and included the 
evening following the Lord's Day, making thirty hours in all.^ 
Thirty years later Boston stationed guards on the neck of the 
peninsula at sunset Saturday evening to prevent all x>ersons, 
whether on foot or horse, from passing out of the city.^ A 
good young man of Norwich complained of himself before a 
justice of the peace that he had visited a relative on Saturday 
night and promised to do so no more.^ Instances might easily 
be multiplied." 

■ Shea evidently understood the exprosBion thus, else lie could not say (Am. Catb. Quar. 
Rer.. Jaly, 1877, p. 487) that " The next alleged law as to licent»ed ferrymen * * • was 
nothing really oVjectionable." Understood any other way the law would bo objection- 
able, outrageous. 

*GeB. Laws of Mass. Bay Col., edi of 1672, p. 50. 

* Laws of Conn. Col., ed. of 1750, p. 70. 

*The original of the law is in Acts and Laws of Conn., Kevision of 1702, p. 105. 

* Acta and Laws of Conn., Revision of 1702, p. 103. See also Provincial Papers of Kew 
Hampshire, Vol. III. p. 222; Mass. Col. Reo's, Vol. IV, pt. 1, p. 347, etc. 

•Mass. Col. Recs., VoL V, p. 239. 

' Eoononic and Social Hist, of New Eng., Wm. B. Weeden, p. 549. 

■Offenoes were punished more severely if committed on the Sabbath. See New Haven 
Code of 1650, Title "burglary"; Prov. Papers, New Hamp., Vol. XIV, p. 070; Recs. of 
New Hav. Col., Vol. II. p. 324; Acts and Laws ut Conn.. Revision of 1702. p. 11. The 
odor of sanctity was by a law of Connecticut attached to the evening following the day of 
the weekly r^igious lecture. See Acts and Laws, Revision of 1702, p. 149. As late as 
1771, in Hasaaehusetts, a special permit needed to be obtained if, by reason of the weather, 
it was not expedient to postpone a burial service till after the Sabbath, and even then the 
pennit warned to *'take care that the corpse be not carried to the grave until an hour 
after sunset.** See History of Shrewsbury, Mass., p. 197. 


30. '* Manstealers sl^all suffer death." Under the title ^< Man- 
stealers," Neal writes, " Whoso steals a person is to be put to 
death."* This was the law all over New England, except in 
Rhode Island^ where the crime ^^manstealing" was punished 
with imprisonment for five years, or '^satisfaction to the 

32. ^'A debtor in prison, swearing he has no estate, shall be 
let out and sold to make satisfaction." This, too, was found in 
Keal's Abridgment. '' The prisoner, swearing before a proper 
magistrate that he has no estate, is to be released, but is to 
make satisfaction by service, though not to be sold to any be- 
side the English."^ We go back to the law of New Haven on 
the subject of debtors, and find the following: 

** No man (is) to be kept at will of the creditor, bat when there appears 
some entate which he will not prodnce. If he takes oath that he has no 
estate, he shall satisfy the debt by service, if the creditor require it, a 
reasonable time, or the conrt shall fix, but not to be sold out of the United 
Colonies, if the debt arise not by sinfuU and heynoos miscarriages which 
disturb the pnblick peace/' * 

In Connecticut Colony was a similar law.'^ 

23. ''A person accused of trespass in the night shall be 
judged guilty unless he shall clear himself by oath." The law 
referred to was passed by the general court of Connecticut in 
1711, and remained upon the statute books till after 1750. It 
provides that whatever person or persons are suspected of 
"disorders or insolencies committed in the night," if they 
" upon examination can not give a satisfactory account where 
he or they were when the disorders or insolencies complained 
of were done" — upon oath, of course — "he or they shall be 
liable to pay such damages as the person or persons complain- 
ing shall have sustained or suffered, and such other fine or 
punishment as the court • • • shall see cause to order, 
not exceeding the sum of five pounds." ° 

At the same time a similar provision was made in the case 
of secret assaults. The suspected person must show an alibi 

> Neol'a App., p. 350. 

* Rec't. of R. I. and Prov. Plan, Vol. I, p. 174. See also Kew Haven Code of lOKS, 
Conn. Code of 1650. 

* Neal's App., p. 306. 

« New Haven Code of 1655. 

* Acts and Laws, Revision of 1702, p. 5. It is interesting to note in this oonnectlon 
that by section 7658 of the statutes of Missouri a vagrant may be sold by publio auction 
to the highest bidder for the period of six mouths, and this is not infrequently douo at 
the present time. 

* Seaaion Laws of Coon., 1711, p. 166. Bee also Revision of 1750, p. 172. 


or be held and punished as guiltyJ It is not our present busi- 
ness to reflect on the grave injustice which might be wrought 
by such laws. That they existed is certain. 

38. ^'The selectmen, on flnding children ignorant, may take 
them away from their parents, and put them into better hands, 
at the expence of their parents.'^ Turning again to Neal, we 
find, ^^The selectmen may examine children and apprentices, 
and admonish parents and masters if they find them ignorant, 
and With the consent of two magistrates or the next county 
court put them into better hands."^ The particular reference 
is to a law of Connecticut and Massachusetts comi)elliug 
parents and masters not only to teach their children and ap- 
prentices, respectively, to read, so as to be able to understand 
the principles of religion and the capital laws of the country, 
but also to teach them some useful calling. Selectmen were to 
watch all families, and if any responsible person persistently 
neglected the law, then, with the help of two magistrates, the 
children were to be apprenticed in better quarters till they 
became of age.^ 

The law in New Haven was not dissimilar, except that dep- 
uties and constables, instead of selectmen, were responsible 
for oversight of such cases, and that when anyone was con- 
victed of persistent neglect it was not mandatory that his 
children should be taken away, but was left to the discretion 
of the judges.^ Of course at a date when innocent persons had 
to pay for their trial and unjust imprisonment delinquents 
under this law were obliged to pay the expense of process 
against themselves and of the formalities of the apprentice- 
ment of their children. 

28. ^^Ko Minister shall keep school." Again we have re- 
course to Neal: ''No minister shall be a schoolmaster." This 
is reckoned among the laws '' frivolous and absurd to the last 
degree." The wise man who said this must settle with the 
dignified legislators of Massachusetts for the insult. In 1701 
they passed the law declaring ''That no minister of any town 
shall be deemed, held, or accepted to be the schoolmaster."^^ 

> SMsion Laws of Conn., 1711, p. 106. BeviBion of 1750, p. 176. 
* KmU's App., p. 832. 

• MaM. Col. Bee*8, Vol. II, p. 6. The law was passed 1642. See also the Conn. Co<le 
of 1660, tiUe *' Children." 

«Kew Haran Code of 1655, title "Children's edncation." 

* Acts and Beeolyes of Mass., VoL I, p. 470. 

*Shea*s snnuise (Am. Catbi Quar. Rev., p. 488, Jnly, 1877) that Patera's referonoo was to 
Episcopal clergymen is evidently mistaken, In the light of the original enactment quoted 


Every town was obliged by law to provide a scboolmaster, but 
no minister, acting as sacb, was allowed in that capacity.' 

34. ^' Whoever brings cards or dice into the dominion shall 
pay a fine of five 1.'' Neal's version reads: ">'one to bring 
cards or dice into the country or to have any in their custody, 
on penalty of £5; half to the treasurer, half to the informer.^* 
Both are right. An act of Massachusetts, dating from 1672, 
states — 

That what person or persons soever shall bring into this juriBdiotion 
any playing cards or dice, or with whomsoever sach cards or dice be 
foond in his or their cnstodyi he or they shall pay as a fine the sum of five 
pounds, the one half to the treasurer, the other half to the informer.^ 

31. <^ Whoever wears clothes trimmed with gold, silver, or 
bone, lace above two shillings by the yard, shall be presented 
by the grand jurors, and the selectmen shall tax the offender 
at 300 1. estate." We turn to Neal, who thus quotes the law : 

All poisons not worth £200, wearing gold or silver lace or buttons or 
bone lace above 2s. per yard, or silk hoods or scarfs, may be presented 
by the grand Jury and shall pay lOs. for every offence. The selectmen of 
every town may assess those who dress above their rank at £200 estate,* 

certain classes excepted. 

Peters, so far as he goes, is in agreement with Neal,' except 
he seems to say £300 in ])lace of £200. But this was probably 
a typographical error like others in the printed book.^ Massa- 
chusetts not only boasted of the foregoing sumptuary provi* 
sions, but the chronicler might have gone on and reported 
truly,thatshesuccessivelythundered against ^'slashed clothes," 
^^cutt worke, imbroidered or needle worke, capps. bands, and 
rayles," ^Mmmoderate greate sleeves,"^ ^^arms bare above the 
wrist," '^ immoderate greate breeches," ^' knots of rybon," 
^^ double ruffles and cuffs,"^ ^Uong hair on men," periwigs, 
curled hair, ribbons in the hair,'' and so on ad nauseam.' Pro- 
fessor Kingsley, in 1838, was unable to find any New Haven 

> Neal erre only in placing this law among those passed before 1700. 

«Keal's App.,p.343. 

'Greneral Laws of Haas., revision of 1672, p. 58. 

«Keal's App.,p.322. 

«For "riveret" Peiers's intelligent printer subatltutod "Biver Btt." HcCormick's 
edition has perpetuated the error, pp. 13i>, 142. 

• Mass. CoL Recs., VoL I, p. 126. 

» lb., p. 274. 

•lb., Vol.V,S9. 

*For proeecations under these and other laws of the same import, see Ecod. and Social 
Hiat* New Eng., Weeden, p. 289; Hist of Lyme, LewiH and Newhall, p. 233 et seq. 


legislation touching dress.^ No one who has written aboat 
Peters's ^< lies "daring the sixty years since then seems to have 
been more fortunate. This fact must be counted among the 
modem wonders. In the singular omnibus act of 1660 New 
Haven clothed ber magistrates with discretionary power to 
punish offenses, among others, in relation to '' apparel."' That 
iSy each magistrate might proceed according to his judgment 
of what was improper apparel, and also of what punishment 
was proper to inflict for wearing it. Still, it is evident that 
New Haven never displayed the morbid anxiety of Massachu- 
setts on this subject.^ 

37. *^ When parents refuse their children convenient mar- 
riages the Magistrates shall determine the point." Neal's 
abstract of the law thus reads : ^< Children to be redrest by the 
magistrate if deny'd convenient marriages." * The original may 
be found in the Massachusetts Body of Liberties.^ <^ If any 
parents shall wilfnllie and unreasonably deny any childe timely 
or convenipnt marriage, or shall exercise any unnatural sever- 
itie towards them, such children shall have free liberties to 
complain to authoritie for redresse." 

19. (First part.f "No one shall travel • • • on the 
Sabbath day." This specification is founded on laws which 
grew more rather than less severe as the seventeenth century 
passed into the eighteenth,^ and which lasted on into our 
own century.** In Gonnecticut, by a statute passed in 1751,^ 
all assistants and justices of the peace were instructed to com- 
plain of persons whom they saw guilty of unnecessary travel 
on the Sabbath day, and all sheriffs, constables, grand-jury- 
men, and tithing men to watch for and arrest without warrant 

> Historical Disooime, p. 108. See also Bacon's Historical Diecounes, p. 07, ed. of 1839. 

s Racords of New Haven Jarisdictton, 1053-1664, p. 366. 

*In 1637 John Gatchell, of Harblehead, waa fined 10 shillings for some offence, bat told 
that if he would "cat of ye lung bar off hys head into a sevil frame," one half of the fine 
would be remitted. It is pleasant to know that he did not cut it off. "Hist and Traditions 
of Marblebead", p. 12. Salem Recs., June, 1637. 

<Keal*s App.,p.332. 

•Sec 83. 

*Thi8 part of the statement is fully authenticated and so must be separated ftom the 
remainder, which would come under a different original statute and is not so fully 

' The people of Windham, N. H., as late as 1784, successfully petitioned the general 
court for stricter laws against Sunday travel. But they were not satisfied, and three 
years later petitioned again. See Prov. Papers of New Hamp., Vol. XIII, pp. 715, 717. 

•Massachusetts Judges were arrested in Maine for Sunday travel in 1804. See Note 5. 

•Seaaioii laws of Conn, of 1751, p. 250. 

HIST 98—8 


all suck oflfenders, or become themselves liable for neglect.^ 
Massachusetts punished people for traveling beyond the town 
line to meeting, as a profanation of the Sabbath, unless that 
meeting was of the sort allowed by law.' 

35. (Four clauses.^) <'No one shall read Common Prayer, 
keep Christmas or Saints' days, dance, (or) play cards.'^^ 

(a) Common Prayer, — The royal commissioners sent over by 
Charles II in 16G5 to investigate affairs of the colonies required 
Massachusetts and Connecticut to repeal the laws which might 
render members of the Church of England liable for heresy.^ 
Three years earlier the King's letter had demanded that Mas- 
sachusetts should allow the Book of Common Prayer to be 
used, providing that persons should so use it as not to disturb 
others.^ I doubt if there was an express statute forbidding 
the Book of Common Prayer. This would have been impoli- 
tic and unnecessary, since any but the most private use would 
have rendered persons liable under the statutes forbidding 
unlawful assemblies,'' and debarring the heterodox from all 
privileges of a freeman. Massachusetts seems to have been 
rather noncommittal in its answer to the King's commission- 
ers, but the latter reported to the sovereign that Connecti- 
cut would not '^ hinder anyone from enjoying the sacraments 
and using the Common Prayer, provided they hinder not the 
maintenance of the public minister."^ Connecticut, then, had 
hindered the use of Common Prayer, and agrees to desist only 
with a proviso,^ while Massachusetts answers in a meek and 

1 In 1812 the grand Jnrors of North Haven, Conn., oomplained to Joehos Bunea, Jastioe 
of the peace, that Joel Pierpont "did at sd. Northhaven on the 5th day of January , 1812, 
laat paat, brake the laws of thin State respecting the Sabbath, by traveling from hons to 
houa flrom one part of the town to the other and disturbing the good people of this town." 
Ue was oonsequently arrested by warrant from the justice, tried before him, andsulyected 
to fine and costs. Original MS. papers in possession of Sheldon B. Thorpe, of North 

* Mass. Col. Bees., Vol. IV, pt. 2, p. 395. 

*Pal£rey quotes law 35 with others and affirms "These statements are wlthoat histori- 
cal foundation " (Hist. Kew £ng., U, 32, n.) We prove that he was mistaken. 

^The six particulars contained in the 35th "law" are wholly unrelated and oonse- 
quently separable. The first four stand on a different historical footing than the 
remaining two. 

•Mass. Col. Bees., VoL IV, pt 2, p. 211. 

•lb., p. 184. 

'For a case of proceedings against an Episcopalian minister in Stratford, Conn., under 
these statutes, see Documentary Hist, of P. E. Church, Conn., Hawkes and Perry, Vol. I, 
pp. 33, 42. 

*The King sent a letter to express his gratification at the obedience of Connecticut. 
See Trumbulls Hist, of Conn. I, 536-7. 

*It is amusing to find this consent extorted from a reluctant colony cited as a proof of 
** the liberality, so extraordinary for the times, which was manifested to those who die- 
aented from their religioua views." W. L. Kingsley in "Now £nglander,"Apr., 1871. 


mild inauuer which is, nevertheless, sufficieutly significant of 
what the methods had been and were likely yet to be.' 

(b) Christmas and Saints^ days, — ^Neal, too, reports ''No feasts 
or festivals to be observed/" What shall be said of the 
char^ that the observance of these festivals was forbidden f 
That on May 11, 1659, a law was enacted in Massachusetts 
which in part reads as ibllows: ''Whosoever shall be found 
observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by 
forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way,^ as a festival, 
shall be fined five shillings." Twenty two years later certain 
laws excepted to by the King's attorney- general were repealed, 
among them that concerniug the observance of Christmas and 
feast days/ 

(c) Dancing, — In the New Haven omnibus act of 1660, to 
which reference has been made, one of the offenses legislated 
against was "mixed dancing." Magistrates were empowered 
to punish according to discretion.^ In the early days of Mas- 
sachusetts persons were brought before the general court and 
admonished for dancing.^ In 1685 Mr. Francis Ste])ney, a 
dancing master, was bound over for trial and warned not to 
teach dancing in the meantime on pain of suffering for con- 
tempt of court.' We find cases in New Plymouth Colony also 
of presentments made for "mixed dancing."*^ This specifica- 
tion of the Bev. Samuel may pass.^ 

{d) Flay cards. — So we find in Neal that it was forbidden 
for "Cards or dice to be used on penalty of ^we shillings." 

■ llAasachaaetts answered that abe bad never disallowed people "not in a cbnrcb way " 
to form "cbarch eatatea" of tbeir own, provided tbey "do it in nCbriatiau way with the 
obnervallon of the rules of Christ ajypointed in his holy word" and " with the approbation 
qf ths HvU ffo^emmcnt and qf neighboring congregations." Masa. Col. llec's, Vol. IV. pt. 
2, p. 220. Aa for Haaaachuaetta general coart, it at first flatly refused to allow the use of 
Common Prayer, aayiog that the people would not have left England if they could have 
•*Beene the word of God warranting ua [them] to perfomie our dwotiona in that way and 
to have the aamo aet up here. Wee conceive it ia apparent that it will disturbe our peace 
in our present e^joymenta." Mass. Col. Recs. IV, pt. 2, 200. Later the court employed 
language leaa emphatic, but ambiguoua and disingenuous. lb. IV, pt 2, 220. 

«Keal'a App.,348. 

■General Lawa, Reviaion of 1972, p. 67. 

^llaaa. CoL Keca., Vol. V, p. 321. In 1665 the royal commissioners reported to Hia l£iO- 
esty oonceming Maaaacbasetts, " Tbey have many things in tbeir Lawes derogatory to 
hia MiO^A^i^'* bononr, of which j'e Commissioners made a Broviat, and desired tliat they 
might be altered, but tbey have yet done nothing in it. Amongst othora whoever Keeps 
Chriatmaa Day ia to pay five pounds." Maine Hist Soc. Colls., S«!ries 2, Vol.4. They 
should bare reported the fine aa five abillings, not pounds. 

*Reca. Col. of New Haren, 1633-1636, p. 366. 

•Maaa. Col. Boca., Vol. I, p. 233. 

'Diary of Judge Samuel Sewall, in Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls., Series 5, Vol. V, p. 112. 

■Ply. Boea., Vol. II, p. 174. 

'See also "Goseral Lawa of Maaa.." Reviaion of 1672, p. 57, for law against dancing in 


And such was the fact. All over New England card playing 
was prohibited on pains and penalties. Oonnecticut made a 
catalogue of '^dice, cards, tables, b6wles, shufHeboard, billiards, 
coytes, keites, loggett,'* etc., and forbade them in taverns or 
private houses, on penalty of a fine to each person playing 
"of what rank or quality soever" and to the innkeeper, or 
head of the family allowing the game.' 

More than this, I lately had in my hands the manuscript 
records of Joshua Barnes, acting as justice of the peace in 
North Haven. Therein it appeared that seven young men 
were apprehended and tried for playing cards, *' which is of 
evil example and contrary to the laws of the State." They 
were fined $3.34 apiece, besides $1.27 costs. And the date 
of these prosecutions was 1812.^ 

44. "Married persons must live together or be imprisoned." 
We make another excursion to Neal and find these words, 
"Married persons must live together, unless the court of assist- 
ants approve of the cause to the contrary."^ Peters deviates 
from his copy in this instance, but his deviation was warranted 
by precedents in his own mother colony. Elizabeth Way, for 
example, was presented at the New London court, in the year 
1682, "for not living with her husband." She was ordered to 
go to her husband or be imprisoned.^ 

The general court of Massachusetts in 1665 ordered William 
Tilly and his wife to live together, him to support her and her 
to obey him, else he would be fined £40 and she imprisoned.' 
In 1669 Christopher Lawson and his spouse were "enjoined to 
live quietly and peaceably together as man and wife" on pen- 
alty, in case either failed to obey, of imprisonment in the house 
of correction or of banishment.^ But it was more usual to fine 
such delinquents,^ or to send them out of the colony to their 
forsaken partners.^ We should conclude, then, that this forty- 
fourth allegation of Peters was justified by the occasional 
practice of the courts. 

• •'Acta and laws of Conn.," Revision of 1702, p. 45. 

*MS. Rec«. of Joshua Bamea, justice of tlie peace, owned by E.H. Barnes, New Haven, 
Conn. See also Mass. Col. Kecs., Vol. IV, Pt. I, p. 366. See also "Prov. Papers of New 
Hampshire," Vol XI V, p. 117, where a similar act passed in 1718 is given. See also Me. 
Hist. Coll., Series I. Vol. I, p. 378. 

*Neal's App.. p. 356. 

<"Hi8t. New London," p. 251. 

» Mass. Col. Recs., Vol. IV, pt. 2, p. 288. 

•lb., p. 426. 

» lb.. Vol. Ill, p. 349, etc. 

*Me. Hist Soc. Cols., Ser. 1, Vol. I, p. 360. This is a case of a man in York, Province of 
Maine, ordered to bring his wife from England within a year or else return to that 


1. **The Governor and Magistrates, convened in general 
Assembly, are the snpreme power under God of tbis indepen- 
dent Dominion."* 

The New Haven Code of 1665* declares the civil doctrine 

Thongh tbey hnmbly acknowledge that the Sapreame power of making 
laws and of repealing belongs to God only » • * y^t civill rulers and 
courts and the Generall Court in particular (being intrusted by the free- 
men as before) are the ministers of Gfid for the good of this people and 
have power to declare, publish, and establisbe for the plantations within 
their jurisdictions the lawes he hath made « * « and to require due 
extension of them. 

God only is recognized as the fountain of law and authority. 
There is no word of recognition of the royal prerogatives here 
or elsewhere. No New Haven law was ever passed in the 
name of majesty, nor was the King's name used in the statute 
books of Connecticut or Massachusetts Bay till considerably 
after this date. The latter colonies claimed absolute power to 
terminate all civil and criminal cases under their charters. New 
liaven had no charter, but exercised not less absolute power. 
The chartered colonies were bound not to make laws repug- 
nant to those of England, but fought every attempt of the 
mother country to make this clause valid, thus hastening the 
day of royal governors. New Haven was bound by no such 
stipulation and contemplated no such interference. 

4. " The Governor shall have only a single vote in deter- 
mining any question, except a casting vote when the Assem- 
bly may be equally divided." Neal says: "The governor (is) 
to have the casting vote in this as in other civil assemblies."^ 
Now, either Peters was exactly right, that the governor had 
nominally one vote but in case of a tie cast another, or else he 
had only a casting vote, and his power was even more limited 
than Peters supposed.^ The governor certainly had no veto 
power. Were not the point involved in some obscurity, I 

* There la a verbal inaccuracy here. It shoald have been " governor, magistrates, and 
deputiee." But the inaccnracy was not meant to deceive, coald not deceive anyone. 
How ooold there lie a general court or assembly without some kind of representation of 
the people f 

*Becords of l^ew Haven J nrisdiction, 1653-1664, p. 569. Kesldes, Law 5 shows how Peters 
understood it. 

«^'eal*8 App., p. 366. 

*The otject of the fourth, fifth, and sixth of IVtern's specifications was to show how 
rampant demoeraoy in the colony was, liraitiog the power of the governor in every direc 


Bhoiilcl assign the law to the first class, for there is reason to 
believe it is literally correct. The New Haven Gode says:* 

And nothing shall be concluded and pass as an act of the general oonit 
(iinlesse in cases expressly excepted) but by the consent and vote of the 
major part of the magistrates, together with the consent and vote of the 
greater part of the deputies. 

But who were the " magistrates " who voted apon every ques- 
tion f They were not exclusive but inclusive of the governor 
and deputy governor, as we have seen. The code declares: 
^<A11 which both governor, deputy governor, magistrates, and 
plantation deputies shall have a vote in the said court." So 
the governor had a normal and customary vote on every ques- 
tion. But what in case of a tief The code omitted to state in 
reference to the general court what should be done in this 
emergency. But it did provide that in the court of magis- 
trates ^' the governor, and in his absence the deputy governor, 
when votes in other respects are equall, shall • • • have a 
casting voyce.^ In the plantation court '^ the casting voyce 
shall be in the governor or deputy governor or magistrates 
present." It is nearly certain that the general court would 
adopt a similar procedure. 

We may add that at least one governor of New Plymouth 
Colony, William Bradford, had a normal and regular double 
vote. He does not seem to have received this till his third 
term in office. But he nniy have had, and probably did have 
all the while, a casting vote.^ 

11. ''No man shall hold office who is not found in the faith 
and faithful to this Dominion; and whoever gives a vote to 
such a person shall pay a fine of £1; for a second offense he 
shall be disfranchised.*' NeaPs version is as follows: 

No man (Ih) to he a deputy who is not fonnd in the main points of 
religion regular in his couverKation or faithful to the government; who- 
ever votes knowingly for such payH five shillings.-* 

The original statute of Massachusetts (not New Haven )^ 
declares that no man, though a church member, shall be 
accepted as a deputy by the general court 'Hhat is unsound 

I R<H-«. of New Haven Jar., 1053-1004, p. 570. 

« Pilgrim Kopiiblic. Goodwin, p. 2.''>5. Tlio ilntc in 1024. The preeident of the "hiiEh 
council of war" in tlio time of Henry VI 11 liad, nt inant on cerUUn occaatona, a double 
vot4o. Seo Military Antiquitios, FraucU Grom>, London, 1801, Vol. II, p. 00. 

* Nonra App., p. 338. 

* Yet in Now Havon, t4io, audi a person wiim nut f*li|;ible to oftice, and no one waa allowed 
to vote fur him. 


in the main points of Gbristian religion • • • or that is 
scandalous in his conversation, or that is anfaithful to this 
government • • • and any person voting for one known 
to be such shall be fined five x>ound8.'' ^ It will be noted that 
Peters did not quote Neal correctly, but that the fact was 
"bluer'' than either reported. The clause in Peters's version 
stating that for the second offense a person was to be disfran- 
chised he may have supplied from tradition. There is no ques- 
tion that the magistrates had discretionary power thus to 
punish the offender, since they sometimes disfranchised cul- 
prits guilty of more venial crimes, and by the authority of no 
written statute.' Disfranchisement seems a very fitting pen- 
alty for persistent illegal voting. 

24. "When it appears that any accused has confederates, 
and he refuses to discover them, he may be racked.'' If this 
be a forgery, it, like so many others, must be laid to Neal's 
account, not to the account of Peters, who copied it in a rather 
inverse order from the former writer. Neal puts it, "None 
(are) to be racked, unless it appears there are confederates 
and he won't discover them."-' 

Turning now to the Massachusetts Body of Liberties we 
read — 

No man shall be forced by tortare to confesse any crime against him- 
selfe, nor any other, unless it be some capitall case where he is first fullie 
convicted by cleare and snQlcient evidence to be guilty. After which, if 
the cause be of that nature, that it is very apparent that there be other 
conspirators or confederates with him, then he may be tortured yet not 
with such tortures as bo barbarous or inhumane.^ 

NeaFs version is faulty, but Peters simply copies it, even to 
the use of the word "racked." The original law does not name 
the rack, but this discrepancy is merely verbal. In case the 
colonists had decided to torture they would doubtless have 
used the instrument whose use for that purpose had been 
familiar to their ancestors for two centuries. The rack admits 
of all grades of torture, from slight uneasiness to exquisite 
I>ain. Yet the seventeenth-century idea of what grade would 

iHaas. Cot. Recs.. Vol. IV, part 1, p. 206. 

'jJobn Gom wm dUfranchlaed for "common railing." See "Hiatory of Hsrlborongh," 
Charles Hndaon. p. 244. and referenio there, in 1639 Anthony £mory waa diafranchised 
"for making a lye In ye face of the court," and Richard Naaon "for entertaining Qua 
kera." See Maaii. Col. Reoe., Vol. I V, ftart 1 , p. 406. 

* Neal's App., p. 366. 

«Mass. Body of Liberties, sec. 47. Still retained in "General Laws," revision of 1672, 
p. 129. 


be <^ barbarous and inhaman " differed, it is needless to state, 
from that current in our day. Whether torture was ever 
applied in Massachusetts is an alien question, which would 
probably merit a negative response. But by the authority of 
frindamental law the courts might order it, as Peters asserts. 
25. <<No one shall buy or sell lands without permission of the 
selectmen." The New Haven Oode of 1655 contains a law for- 
bidding anyone to '^sel, give nor in anyway alienate or pass 
over, lease or let any house, or houslot or any part or parcel of 
any of them, or any land of any kind or quality soever" to 
an outsider without permission, on the penalty of a fine of £10.^ 
A similar law, but with sterner sanctions, was enacted by 
Massachusetts in 1637.' But lying back of these were the town 
by-laws, in some cases passed before union with the colony. 
An interesting case came up in a New Haven court of magis- 
trates,^ May 28, 1660, res[)ecting a ^'breach of an ancient 
order" made by the settlers on a neck of land called Hasha- 
momock, 'Hhat what man soever that should desire to remove 
and so endeavor to make such sale of his accommodations 
should put in such neighbor as the other inhabitants liveiug 
with him shall approve off." The magistrates recognized the 
agreement as binding. Of course the selectmen would voice 
the will of the inhabitants. Thus the lot of Thomas Hastings, 
of Dedham, was in 1639 declared forfeited because he had 
violated such an order of the town.^ Sometimes it would 
seem that a closer iuteiference with personal liberty was prac- 
ticed. In Boston, March 29, l(i47, it was ordered 'Hhat do 
Inhabitant shall farme, lett or put to sale to any person any 
howse or howses within this towne without first acquaintinge 
the selectmen of the towne their with."* We read in Salem 
Records that ^' Mr. Smith (junior) may purchac^e that 2-acre 
Lott from Mr. Burdett att £7,"^ and in Massachusetts Records 
that " Wm. Curtis had leave to build upon his lot, his other 
dwelling being situated so inconveniently.^ The general court 
of New Plymouth experienced such paternal solicitude for the 
safety of Joseph Ramsden as to admonish him /'to come out 

' Code of New Haven of 1G&5. 

'Hatcbinson's UtHt. Mass. Bay, p. 62. 

■Reca. of New Haven Juris., 1053-1664, p. 360. 

* Dedham Keca. 163G-1650, p. 54. Tbe orifrinal a/j^reement may be found on p. 34. 

• Boston Town Rocs., March 29, 1047. 
•Essex Hist. Soc. Colls., Vol. Ill, p. 45. 

» Mass. Col. Recs , Vol. I, p. 252. So<» also Recs. of New Haven Col., Vol. I, p. 32, whoro 
a man "was rebaked for building a cellar and selling it without leave." 


of the woods or by October his hoase (in the woods) will be 
torn down."* 

It is fair to say, then, that Peters's statement, while defective, 
is too nearly correct to justify any indignation at his expense. 
The selectmen and the conrts did at first restrain the liberty 
of baying and selling real estate to a considerable extent. 
They did so in order to maintain good society. Their attempt 
failed, and enforcement soon became impracticable. 

26. '< A drunkard shall have a master appointed by the select- 
men, who are to debar him from the liberty of baying and sell- 
ing." Magistrates in New Haven were authorized to "wit- 
ness" against various offenses, including ^' idle living out of an 
industrious calling " and "drinking," according to discretion. 
Still greater was the discretionary power of the general court, 
which could put under government whenever it judged proper. 
An example may be cited from the records of New Plymouth. 
The house and land of one Webb Adey were in 1638 sold to 
tlie highest bidder, and himself placed as a temporary slave in 
the service of Governor Prince, because he had worke<l two 
Sabbath days, and especially because of his " disorderly liv- 
ing in idleness and nastyness."^ He was probably a sot, to 
judge by his habits. In Oonnecticut no person, " householder 
or other," could " spend his time idly or unprofltably under 
pain of such punishment as the court shall have power to 
inflict."^ As late as 1814 Solomon Bradley was the subject of 
complaint by the selectmen of North Haven for " idleness, 
mismanagement, and bad husbandry." He was arrested by 
warrant from Joshua Barnes, and by the same justice of the 
peace it was decided that an inventory of his estate should be 
forthwith taken * and he placed under a master. 

The motive for this and most legal actions of this kind was 
the fear that the obnoxious person would " come on the town." 
Peters was certainly right in the main fact that drunkards 
were often placed under masters and debarred from the liberty 
of buying and selling by the selectmen who took their estate in 
cliarge.^ It was because sottish habits were reducing them to 

* Kecs. of Kew Plymoath, Vol. Ill, p. 102. The date is Jano 3, 1656. 

* Recs. of New Plymoath, Vol. I, pp. 87. 01 . See also Me. HlBt Soc. Coll., Series 1, Vol. I, 
p. 879. 

'Acta and Laws, Revision of 1673, p. 31. 

* Original papers in posaession of E. Uenry Barnes, of Kew Haven. 

'In the case of Solomon Bradley the selectmen wore directed "to|take his interest in 


idleness aud poverty, so that they were in danger of becoming 
a public expense. 

27. "Whoever publishes a lie to the prejadice of his neigh- 
bor shall set in the stocks or be whipped 15 stripes." ^ Neal has 
the statement — 

Whoever pnblisheB a lie to the prejudice of the publick or any private 
person pays 10 s. or sits in the stocks two hours for the first offence, for 
the second 20 s. or whipping ten stripes, for the the third 40 s. or fifteen 
stripes. Every next fault increases 10 s. or five stripes.' 

Neal is right, except he fails to state that the stripes could 
never exceed 40 at one time. Peters is right, except he fails to 
state that the penalties he names were the alternative ones for 
the first and third offenses. But in 1646 the New Haven court 
fined William Ball 40 shillings and costs for his '< guileful car- 
riage and untruth " in saying his gun was charged, and when 
it was discovered that he had left the powder out, laughing aud 
admitting that he knew he had done so. So far as it is men- 
tioned it was the first offense. It does not appear either that 
it was to the " prejudice of his neighbor." He appears to have 
been punished purely because of the iniquity of lying. His 
fine was equivalent to about $50 to-day, and he would proba- 
bly have preferred the stocks unless he was a man of means.^ 

36. '<No gospel Minister shall join people in marriage; the 
magistrates only shall join in marriage, as they may do it with 
less scandal to Christ's church." I do not know whence the 
latter portion of this statement was obtained or whether it is 
an explanatory conjecture. But the main fact is found in 
NeaFs Abridgement: <^None are to marry persons but the 
magistrate."^ This was true of the New England colonies 
generally. Take the New Haven law on the subject — it is suf- 
ficiently explicit: '^No man, unless he be a magistrate in this 
jurisdiction, or expressly allowed by the general court, shall 
marry any person."* The historian Hutchinson says that he 

1 In reference to the law against lying, ProfoHsor Kingsloy wrote, " It is a little remark- 
able that the author in this iustanoe swerves less trom the fact than perhaps in the case of 
any other law in his whole liHt." Historical disoonrso, Note N, p. 107. Ah this stat4^nient 
follows the admission that Peters erred in his version of this statute against lying, it 
amounts to a claim that not a single one of the 45 is authentic. Amazing! 

*Nears App., p. 355. Law passed in Mass., 1645. See Mass. Col. Recs., Vol. II, p. 104- 
It was transferred thence to Connecticut. See Code of 1650, title, "Lying." 

>Kecs. of New Haven Col., p. 264. In Massachnssett^ oO'eiiders were sometimes put at 
the door of the meeting house at time of service with tongue in a cleft stick and a pla- 
card on the hat annouuoiug that they were tliere for lying. This snrely involved ns 
much shame as the stockH. See Essex 1 nst. Hist. Colls., Vol. V I. Records of Essex County 
oonrt, nth mo., 1st day, 1639. 

* Neal's App., p. 356. 

• New Haven Code of 1655, title " Marriageu." 


supposes there was oo instance of a marriage by a clergyman 
daring the whole existenceof the first charterof Massachusetts.' 
41. ^^ A man that strikes his wife shall pay a fine of £10; a 
woman that strikes her husband shall be punished as the court 
directs." NeaPs abstract reads:' <^ Whoever strikes his wife 
or her husband is fined not exceeding 10 1. or otherwise pun- 
ished as the court directs.'^ The law was bluer than the state- 
ment of it. That is to say, it made no discrimination in favor 
of the woman, and but awards to the culprit of either sex the 
alternation of a fine or some bodily punishment. The original 
statute was enacted by Massachusetts October 15,1650. This 
is its language:^ 

It is ordered by this coart and aathority thereof that no man shall strike 
his wife, nor any woman her hnsband, on penalty of snch fine, not ex- 
ceeding ten pounds for one offence, or such corporall punishment as the 
shire court that hath examination thereof shall determine.- 



19. (Second part.) " No one shall • • • cook victuals, 
make beds, sweep house, cut hair, or shave on the Sabbath 
day." Here we have what was probably intended as an exhibit 
of extreme cases to which the laws against unnecessary work 
would apply. Take, for example, a statute euacted by Massa- 
chusetts in 1668, to the effect that '^ any servile work on the 
Sabt>ath,'' not of piety, charity, or necessity,' should be pun- 
ished by fines, beginning with 10 shillings and doubling with 
any repetition of the offense.^ Whether any particular task is 
necessary or not depends upon the interpretation of the age. 
Never could cutting hair have been considered necessary on 
the Sabbath. Cooking, sweeping, and shaving are not looked 
upon with favor as necessary and therefore justifiable labor on 
Sunday in many a New England household to this day. In 
the seventeenth century ^< making beds" could not have been 
necessary before sunset, when the Sabbath came to an end. 
And when we consider that the controlling element who emi- 
grated here were Puritans deeply, darkly blue, and that they 
came over in the midst of the great Sabbatarian controversy, 

■Quoted by Miat Caalkins in Hist, of New London, p. IM. Noal says: "AH niar- 
riagee in New England were formerly performed by citH inagiiitraiee." Vol. II, p. 253. 
>Neal*e App.,366. 
sHaae. Col. Bees., Vol. in. p. 212. 
«Ib., Vol.IV,pt.n, P.3B5. 


excited by the determination of the King, a8 the Puritans con- 
strued it, to subject the Sabbath to profanation/ can we for a 
moment believe that any of the enumerated acts were regarded 
necessary and befitting on the Lord's DayT How far magis- 
trates, clothed with great discretionary powers, took cognizance 
of these particular acts we are deprived of the means of deter- 
mining. Such cases are to be sought for mostly in the records 
of local justices of the peace,' and few or none of ancient date 
have survived. The presumption is that tithingmen, consta- 
bles, and grand jurors, urged on by the stringent statutes mak- 
ing it their duty to complain of breaches of the Sabbath, did 
sometimes report instances of the kind, and that narrow and 
arbitrary magistrates sometimes treated them as within the 
scope of the law.-^ 

18. <<Noone shall run on the Sabbath day or walk in his 
garden or elsewhere except reverently to and from meeting." 
Reference is had here to several laws which were familiar in 
Connecticut and Massachusetts. Persons might be prosecuted 
for running on the Sabbath day, if that running was near a 
meeting house and the worshippers considered themselves 
disturbed.* "Jumping" and *• riding" in such vicinity was 
likewise dangerous, as a penalty of 40 shillings might follow. 
Peters's condensed version is hardly candid. Another law 
forbade "unnecessary walking in the streets or fields," etc.' 
What is to delimit a garden from a field, especially in the 
loose sense in which a New Englander speaks of his vegetable, 
garden?^ Most walking in the streets, "except to and from 

*In 1632, Cbarlea I rovivecl bin father 'b "Declaration concerning lawful eporte to be 
U8e<l [on Sundays]." Archbisbop Laud directed that all clergymen 8bou1d road thin in 
tbeir cburolies. Puritan ministore generally declined to do bo. and conBequontly received 
harsh treatment. Thf^reupon anwe the Sabbatarian controversy. 

*Calle<l ''JuBtire.s of the p«ac«,'' " oomniissionerH for sm^l cases/Vto. 

*The "Episcopal Clergyman " (Peters, p. 213) may have snflered from snob literal 
application of the law. Perhaps, in truth, ho combed hia wig, etc., rather flanntinglyin 
the faces of the Sabbatariana. For cases of prosecution for "sitting together on the 
Lord's Day nnderan npple tree," driving cattle, sailing a boat, " riding a Journey," carry- 
ing grist from a mill," etc., see " Jlist. Now London," Caulkins, pp. 250-51. Case of "en- 
deavoring to catch ftish upon ye liord's Day," York Deeds, Book V, pt.2, folio 86. See 
also • • Plym. Recs.," Vol. HI, p. 28, etc. 

4" Whatsoever pornon shall bo guilty of any rude and unlawAill behavior on the Lord's 
Day. cither in word or action, by clamorous discourse, or by shouting, hollowing, scream* 
ing, running, riding, dancing, Jumping, winding horns or the like, in any honse or place 
so near to nny pul)lick me<>ting house for divine worship that those who meet there may 
be disturbed," shall be fined 40 shillings. Session Laws of Conn, of 1721, p. 261. 

"Conn. Laws. Revision of 1702, p. 105. Also sc<' Revision of 1750. The Mass. law was 
passed May 18, 1653, and may be fonnd in Mass. Col. Recs., Vol. Ill, p. 3. 

^ Who can aftinn that the Episco]>al minister whose miseries Peters relates (p. 213) was 
a myth 1 To me it sc^^ros very probabh^ that in sonic ultra Episcopal-abhorring com- 
munity tlio laws may have been applied in all their literalness. Of course Peters's 
version of the five counts of tho indictment would uiininiiKC tlie amount of carelossueaa 
of which the minister had been guilty. 


meeting," would be unnecessary on the Sabbath day. The 
closing clause, then, is of the nature of a corollary from the law. 
How dear the law against walking in the streets and fields on 
the Sabbath day was to the hearts of our ancestors may be 
seen from the fact that even the fear of the royal displeasure 
and the loss of their charter could not induce them to change 
it. The Massachusetts general court in 1681 were willing to 
change the laws referring to highway robbery, treason, and 
Quakers, in response to the pressure from the throne, but when 
it comes to the Sabbath law, it laconically remarks, '^nothing 

This, though we blacklist this eighteenth of Peters's series 
on account of its warped and defective statement, we are 
nevertheless compelled to admit that it has a considerable 
basis of fact. 

20. << No woman sball kiss her child on the Sabbath or fast- 
ing day." This is about the most ridiculous of the whole lot 
Yet we find Dr. Burnaby saying in his '* Travels" that "a 
captain of one of the English ships of war stationed at Boston 
some years ago'' returned from a cruise on Sunday, was met 
by his wife at the wharf, embraced and kissed her before spec- 
tators, and thereby ^^ gave grave ofience; it was considered 
an act of indecency and a flagrant profanation of the Sab- 
bath," so that he was arrested and whipped for his act. 
Whether this was true or not we will not undertake to say. 
But there is no doubt that Burnaby thought it was true and 
that, as he says, it was communicated to him by persons of 
credit in Boston. Perhaps Peters, who we know had read 
and referred to this book, reasoned, '< If a profanation to kiss a 
wife, why not to kiss a child T" Indeed, with our nineteenth 
century conceptions, we should find it hard to point out the 
vital distinction, though perhaps our fathers apprehended an 
element of impropriety in the former case absent from the 

It is interesting in this connection to find that in the year 
1670, in New London, Conn., John Lewis and Sarah Chapman 
were prosecuted for <^ sitting together on the Lord's Day under 
an apple tree in Goodman Chapman's orchard."^ Pray, what 
would be said of this case were Samuel Peters the only extant 
authority for its truth T 

I. Col. Hecs., Vol. V, p. 821. See Hatchinson's Hl«t. of Mms. Bay, Vol. I, p. 443. 
* Hiat New London, Caalkins, p. 250. 


<<Or fasting day,^ the twentieth <^blue law" continues, as if 
days set apart. by the authority of the general court were to 
be kept as holy as those hallowed from the beginning of the 
world. And so they were in New Haven Colony,^ in Connect- 
icut Oolony,' and generally throughout Kew England. One 
trembles to record — for it sounds like <Hhe baseless invention 
of an embittered" detractor — that in the year 1812, in North 
Haven^ a party of young persons were fined for ^^recreating 
themselves and others by rolling down stones" oft' Great Sock 
on Fast Day.-* Prosecutions for breach of Fast Day and of 
Thanksgiving Day were common well up into our own century.^ 

29. <' Every rateable person who refuses to pay his propor- 
tion to the support of the Minister of the town or parish shall 
be fined by the Court 2 1. and 4 1. every quarter until he or she 
pay the rate to the Minister." Perhaps it was Peters's ^^men- 
dacity" which made him use the unintelligible language ^'2 1. 
and 4 1. every quarter." But no, it was only awkwardness, for 
Neal says : 

Where no charcli \h gathered the rateable inhabitants chase, with the 
advice of three neighboring ministers, giving 15 days' notice. J t'any refuse 
to pay his proportion ho is lined by the qnarter session 40 s. for the first 
offence and 4. 1 for every other. 

There is, then, no disagreement between Peters and Neal, and 
if either should prove to be a liar it is not Peters, for he copied 
his lesson fairly, if clumsily. The truth is that Neal blundered 
in his abstract of a lengthy law. The statute passed in Mas- 
sachusetts, February, 1693, does indeed say that the rateable 
inhabitants <' shall meet and select a minister, with the advice 
of three neighboring ministers," and it does provide that some- 
body in case of neglect shall be fined £2 at first and £4 every 
following quarter that the neglect continues. But it is the 
selectmen or other responsible officers who neglect to call the 
meeting for choosing a minister who are to be fined, and not 
those who neglect to pay church rates.' There were, however, 

>Beoa. of New Haven Juris., 1653-1664, pp. 587^588. 

"Session Laws of Conn., 1721, p. 267. 

*MS. Kecs.of Joshua Barnes. Justice of the peace, owned by S. H. Barnes, New Haven, 
Conn. The crime took place March 27. Two of the offenders htn^t'd a warning and 
appeared April 15 to make complaint against themselves, and thus diminish costs. The 
same date eight more of the culprits were presented by the grand Jury. By September 
5 all but one had been brought into court and fined. 

^Katherine Neal, of Maine, was presented for making a shirt on Thanksgiving Day. 
She plead ignorance, and was discharged on paying fees. This was in 1606. York 
Deeds, Bk. V, pt 2, folio 88. 

•Acts and Besolvea of Mass., Vol. I, p. 103. 


laws generally throughout New England compelling payment 
of taxes for the support of the minister, assessed according to 
amount of prox)erty. If not paid officers levied upon the 
offender's goods.^ 

33. <^ Whoever sets a fire in the woods and it burns a house 
shall suffer death, and persons susi^ected of this crime shall be 
imprisoned without benefit of bail." Neal says : 

Whoever kiDdles ft fire in a wood bo aa to hurt corn, before the 30tb of 
April, or on Saturday or Sundays, pays the damage and half as much to 
the country. If not able to pay, is to be whipt with twenty stripes. 
Whoever seta, fire to anything is to pay double damage and be whipt if ten 
years old. If it be a house, or such like, 'tiH death, with the forfeiture of 
what makes satisfaction. Persons suspected of this to be imprisoned with- 
out bail until the next county court.'^ 

Neal's is a correct abstract, except that the fire must not be 
kindled before the 10th of March or after the 30th of April, 
instead of before the latter date. How did Peters come to 
make such a blunder as he has in this instance raadeT How 
did Neal come f o make a similar blunder in the case where he 
fixed a fine upon delinquent taxpayers instead of delinquent 
selectmen T Simply by hurriedly casting his eye down the lines 
and writing down the impression thus derived. '' Whoever 
kindles a fire in a wood so as to hurt corn," Peters read, and, 
glancing down the lines, found a new sentence beginning, '^If 
it be a house, or such like, 'tis death." The resultant in his 
mind then was, If anyone kiudles a fire and it burns a field 
of corn he must pay damages, but if it burns a house he must 
safifer death. A clumsy error this, but no more so in his case 
than the like error was in the case of Neal, whom no one has 
accused of ''forgery."^ But there was a law in Massachusetts 

>Ma«B: Part of the Mme i^neral statute, Acts and Resolves, Vol. I, p. 103. Conn.: 
See Code of 1660; also, Acts and Laws, Keviaion of 1702, p. 85; also, RevisioD of 1750, 
p. 152, etc. New Haven : See Code of 1655. 

«Keal*s App., p. 342. 

* This explanation of Peters's blunder was snggeeted by my own first Impression derived 
from reading Neal's abstract, and corroborated by finding that others before whom I 
placed the abstract received the same first Impression. The clumsiness which I ascribe to 
Peters consists not in his first misunderstanding an ambiguous paragraph, but in his fail- 
are subsequently to analyze its meaning. The ease with which one can fall into such an 
error may be illustrated by the experience of so careful and painstaking a writer as Pal- 
firey. In the History of New Eng^d (II, 32, n.) he speaks of "The Blue Laws of New 
Haven, which have been precisely described as maUng *one thin volume in folio.' " The 
quotation is from Peters's History of Connecticut, and refers not to the Blue Laws of New 
Haven, but to the Acta and Laws of Connecticut. The passage (p. 85) reads: "The laws 
of the colony enacted by the authority of the charter are decent in comparison with the 
Blue Laws. They make one thin volume in folio. Yet exceptions may be justly made to 
many of them," etc. A natural mistake, truly, but the mantle of charity which we throw 
over Palfrey equally protects Peteta from the impiicatios of "falsehood " Qr "forgery " in 
this Instance. 


that if any person shall intentionally ^'set on fire any outhouse, 
barn, stable, stack of hay, corn, or wood, whereby any dwelling 
house, meeting house, storehouse, or ship shall happen to be 
burned, every such offender shall be put to death." ^ This law 
is almost blue enough to be construed as the <^ malevolent 
attack" of an enemy upon New England. 

12. <' Each freeman shall swear by the blessed God to bear 
true allegiance to this dominion and that Jesus is the only 
King." The oath of fidelity taken by the adult male inhab- 
itants of New Haven colony begins^ — 

Yoa beiDg, by the providence of God, nn inhabitunt within New Hnven 
jnrisdiction, do freely and sincerely acknowledge yourself to be snbject 
to the government thereof, and do here swear by the great and dreadful 
name of the everlasting God that you will be true and faithful to the samo. 

The Oiith ^ contained no such language as ''and Jesus is the 
only King." But the inhabitants did by their oath swear by 
the name of God to be faithful to a government whose attitude 
is truthfully exi>ressed by that very clause. We have seen 
that the general court professed to derive its power of making 
laws not from the Ring of England but from God. The same 
paragraph expressly acknowledges only one mediate authority 
between God and the general court, and that is Jesus Christ. 
This is the language: 

Secondly, though they humbly acknowledge that the snpreame power of 
making laws and of repealing them belongs to God only, and that by Him 
this power is given to Jesus Christ as mediator (Matt, xzviii, 19; John ▼, 
22), * • « Yet civill rulers and courts, and this generall court in par- 
ticular, * • * are the ministers of God for the good of the people, and 
have power to declare, publish, and establish, for the ])lantations within 
their jurisdictions, the laws Ho hath made, &o.* 

The clause <' and Jesus is the only King," correctly represents 
the legal attitude and the sentiment of New Ilaven colony. 

35. (Two clauses.) ''(No one shall) make minced pies 
* * * or play on any instrument of music except the drum, 
trumpet, and jew's-harp." The Puritans may have entertained 

■ Passed October 28, 1692. Acts and Bosolveii of Hafm., Vol. I, p. M. 

* New Haven Code of 1855. Title, " Oath of Fidelity." 

* The oath makes no mention, of course, of the King of England. Neither did that of 
Connecticut promise allegiance to the King or make any reference to liim whatever. (See 
the Bevised Statutes of Conn., 1673, Acts and Laws, p. 53.) The oath of allegiance to 
the King was ordered in Massachusetts by a royal letter in 1678 and first employed in 
consequence of that order. (See Mass. Col. Hecs.. Vol. V, pp. 102, IM.) Chief Jastice 
Brayton, of Bhode Island, writes of the authorities of Mass. Bay and of New Plymouth 
in the early days. They " recognized no allegiance to any earthly power, none to the 
King of England, whose subjects they were." " B. I. Hist. Tracts," No. 17, pp. i4-45. 

* New Haven Code of 1665. 


a prejudice againafc miuee pies as a siuful pampering oi tue tlesli, 
bat they probably did not make tbem the subject of judicial 
decisions. The last clause probably roughly represents a 
prejudice rather than a law of our ancestors. Yet they did 
forbid ^'singing, Mdliug, piping, or any other niusick in any 
public house." They resented the introduction of church 
organs by the Episcopalians. Certain musical instruments are 
regarded with horror, notably the violin, in some New England 
households to this day. On the other hand, the drum was 
used to summon the first settlers to meeting, and the trumpet 
at militia gatherings and at public proclamations. Perhaps 
Peters knew more about the Few England affinity for jew's- 
harps than we. But one can not help suspecting that his own 
affinity for sarcasm obtruded itself in the wrong place. Here 
is the best place to hint ^^Selah," and let the antiphon sound. 

7. '^ Whoever says there is a power and jurisdiction above 
and over this dominion shall suffer death and loss of property." 
Without doubt, here we have a gigantic blunder. Some may 
prefer to call it a lie. Whoever asserted that there was a 
power above the judisdlction was apt to feel it in his pocket, 
but assuredly his neck was safe unless he supported his lan- 
guage by some treasonable act. 

45, "Every male shall have his hair cut round according to 
a cap." To a limited extent this represents a Massachusetts 
enactment against long hair worn by men. To some extent it 
may represent a peculiar custom by which the *^ Bound Heads,"^ 
not of the Puritans of Cromwell's army, but of those nearer 
home, were produced. In the primitive days the most of hair 
dressing was, of course, done by the mistress of the family, 
and a cap, bowl, or even a pumpkin shell would help get an 
even contour. No one in the controversy has yet displayed 
sufficient knowledge of early methods of hair dressing to give 
his denial weight. I am content to leave the matter with a 
pregnant sentence from Hutchinson's History of Massachu- 
setts: "The text against long hair in Corinthians, as contrary 
to the custom in the apostle^s day, induced our ancestors to 
think it criminal in all ages and all nations. « # # j have 

> An epithet applied by the RoyallsU (Cavaliers) during the civil war of 1642-1619 to 
tb«ir opponents of the Parliaraentary l>arty, in allusion to thr way in which the Puri- 
teDA wore their hair. Rev. Charles Chauncey, president of Harvard College, preached 
against men's wearing louj; hair as a great evil, abominable in God's sight. See Gootl* 
win's ''Pilgrim Republic/' p. 428, n.2. John Eliot attrilmUd tho Indian war to Gudn 
wrath on this account and on account of tho wearing of wig3. "Pilgrim Republic," 
p. 428, n. 2. 

HIST 1)8 9 


T^onderccl that the text in LeviticuH, < Ye shall not rouud the 
corners of yonr heads,' was never brought against short hair. 
The rule in New England was that none should wear their 
hair below their ears,"* 

Let us summarize the results of our examination. In twenty- 
eight and one sixth paragraphs, for it seemed necessary to 
divide two of them, we found the material content authentic. 
In nine cases we discerned inaccuracies too slight seriously to 
impair the substantial import. If in a very few instances, as 
in No, 27, the severity of the law seems overstated, in other 
instances, as in Nos. 8, 11, and 34, it is certainly understated. 
In seven and five sixths paragraphs, we found lack of authen- 
tication, essential misstatement, or utter spuriousness, so far 
as legal enactments or judicial customs are concerned. But 
incidentally it appeared that the condemned class of state- 
ments did not all weigh so heavily against the character of 
their writer for veracity as would have been supposed. For 
one, No. 29, was rejected on account of a blunder which Neal 
origiiially made and Peters copied. Another, No. 33, has a 
blunder produced by Peters according to the same easy and 
careless process tbat Neal had employed. No. 19 is probably 
true throughout, if the evidence were forthcoming. There is 
a large amount of legal justification for No. 18. Only one 
clause in No. 12 is spurious, but as that seems related to the 
rest of the paragraph, we have excluded the whole. Yet that 
very clause states accurately the legal attitude of New Haven. 
No. 45 rests to a certain extent ui>on law, but more upon a 
social prejudice and, it may be, custom. If the rejected clauses 
of No. 35 are based upon similar popular prejudices, the foun« 
dation is too shadowy to be pleaded seriously. There is abso- 
lutely nothing to be said in extenuation of No. 7. Less thau 
four, then, of the forty-live paragraphs written by Peters are 
liable to even the suspicion that they were forged by him. Yet 
Trumbull heads the entire list with the general caption, "The 
*Blue Law' Forgeries of Samuel Peters." Over thirty-seven 
of those paragraphs nmst be allowed to stand, as expressions 
of literal or substantial fact. Of these, twenty-three at least 
were valid in New Haven ; the rest in other parts of New Eng- 
land.^ It is i)leasant to read again, in this connection, the 
passage already quoted from a learned professor and his- 

' ni«t. of Col. of MiiHH. Bay. Vol. I, p. 152. 

'Orcuurne hodio, ludccil, iiiottt, of tliosc valid iii New Uaven woro also valid eUowhere 
Id Now Englaud. 


toriau:' <^The legend^ of the Blue Laws in tbe iiiveution of 
Samuel f^eters, a mendacious refugee, who iu 1781 published 
m England a ^History of Connecticut.' Included in this odd 
medley of fact and fiction are these grotes(iue enactments, 
which never existed except in the imagination of the author 
of this book.'' 

If Samuel Peters had had access to the records and had 
been a more ]*aiastaking investigator than he was, he could 
have made out a stronger case without perpetrating a single 
blunder. Let us test this by bartering the allegations which 
have been weighed and found wanting for genuine enactments 
of the olden time. We abstract a few, somewhat after the 
manner with which we have been made familiar.^ 

A child over 16 years old who strikes or curses his father or 
mother shall be put to death.^ 

A child over 10 years old who is stubborn and rebellious 
shall be put to death.^ 

Whoever, professing the Christian religion, shall wittingly 
deny the Song of Solomon to be the infallible word of God,^ 
may be whipped 40 lashes and fined X50. On the second 
offence he shall be put to death or banished. 

Whoever marries two wives or more shall be executed.'' 

A man who curses God iu an express and high handed man- 
ner shall be put to death.^ 

Saying that the Christian religion is a politic device to keep 
ignorant men in awe shall be punished with death.^ 

Whoever shall lie iu wait and put out the eye of anotiier 
shall suffer deatli.^ 

If the body of a bastard child be concealed by its mother so 
that it can not be told whether or not it was l)orn alive, she 
shall be judged and exccut-ed as a murderer, unless she can 
produce at least one witness that it was born dead.'" 

» Prof. Geo. P. Fisher In Culonial Era, p. 130. 

' A legend which some given ]icr8on invented Ia a novelty. 

* That in, we alter the wording soinetinies so as to give only a portion of the content of 
the law, but not so as to be misleading. 

^Except when notorionsly neglected or driven by abuse. IJoth failier and mother were 
required to make complaint l>efore process could begin. Acts and Laws uf (?onn., 
Ke\ision of 1702, p. 12. 

*Or any other book of the Bible. See Mass. Col. Recs., Vol. Ill, p. 202. 

* Wm. Norman, at the York court, was banished for bigamy. If not gone in seven days 
lie was " to be put to deatli according to law." Me. Hist. Sue. Colls., Sor. I, Vol. I, p. 370. 

'See, for example, the New Haven Cwle of 1835, title, *' Capital Laws." 
■ Part of the same general law with the preceding. 

* Acta and Laws of Conn., Kcvision of 1750, p. 6tf. 
'•lb., Revision of 1702, p. 13. 


Any man who ases tobacco in the street shall be flned,^ or if 
he do so in his own house, a stranger being present, he shall 
be fined,' or if he and another together they shall be fined,' 
but if on a journey, 5 miles from any house, he may smoke.^ 

Any single person without a servant, wishing to keep house 
by himself, must get the consent of the selectmen, unless he be 
a public officer/ 

Persons not proved guilty, but lying under a strong sus- 
picion of guilt, may be punished, though not so severely as 
would be the case had they been convicted.* 

Ko man shall present a petition on a small and bad piece of 
paper on penalty of a fine.* 

Every family must have a Bible, catechism, and other good 
books. Constables, selectmen, and grand jurors must warn 
all delinquents, and if they continue negligent must report 
them to authority,' 

No man shall abuse a person holding public office by saying 
"thee" and "thou" to him." 

Thomas a Kempis's Imitation of Christ must be expurgated 
before anyone shall be permitted to publish it.^ Thus we 
might go on selecting from the statutes and from the actual 
procedure of the courts. But the exchange already made 

1 Maas. Col. Roos., Vol. I, p. 100. 

'lb., p. 126. 

»Ib., Vol. ir, p. 161. 

* Acts and LnwA of Conn., Keviiiion of 1750, p. 152. 

•This correctly rcprtfat'UlM the prat^tico iu many Instancen. Thus. Petiet wan aev<w«Iy 
whipped in 1637 "for auapltiou of slander, idlonen and Biobborncnea." See Masa. Col. 
Reca., Vol. I, p. 1D4. lu 1653 the general court did "not find John Betta legally gnilty " of 
murder, but "foraamuch an the evidence [hcldj forth great probability of his guilt" be 
waa made to stand on the gallows with a rope around his neck, waa soundly flogged, fined 
£15 and coats, and put under bouda for a year. See Mosa. CoL Keca., Vol. Ill, p. 309. 
Nearly thirty years later a couple were tried in New Uampahire for adnltery. The fact 
was not proved, but since it waa "presumable to have been committed," the man and 
woman were seutc^ncetl to thirty and twenty atripes, reapt^ctlvely, or heavy fines. See 
New Hamp. Prov. Papers, Vol. XI V, p. 676. 

* Thia la sn actual cnso, not of a statute, but of an exercise of diacretion. Kobori Salton- 
atall was fined Sahillings "for pn;aontiug his petition on ao amall and bad a piece of 
paper." Stte Hist, of Marllioroush, Hudson, p. 244. 

'Conn. Session Laws of 1715, p. 206. Not a de^d letter December 30, 1709. Ituth lUay 
waa executed in South Hampton, N. H., in the presence of a great crowd, for the crime of 
"conceallog the birth of a baatard child, ao that it might not come to light whether the 
said child waa born alive ur not." Provini;ial Papers of New Hamp., Vol. VII, p. 206. 

"In 1670 Thoa. Taylor wnn presented to the court at York for "abuniug Capt, Fraucia 
Raynes, being in authority, by Theeing and Thouing him and many other abusive 
apeechea." See Me. Hist. See. Coll. sec. 1, Vol. I, p. 373. 

*This represents an order of the general court when it heard that the book of Thomas 
h Kempis, a popitth minister, was lu process of publication. Mass. Col. Uecs., Vol. IV, 


probably does not cause- tbe list of "blue laws" auy les8' to 
constitnto a Bytuphony in indigo.' 

Id closing we must pay some attention to tlie qneation wby 
Peters ealle<l tbe forty-five specimens of Uis exhibit tbe Blue 
I,aw8 of New HaTen. Some of tbem were peculiar to Massa- 
cliusett«, and some norer came into being till New Haven bad 
ceased to be a separate colony; some were common to New 
Euglaod, and some were in force at the time that the General 
History of Connecticut was writing. 

I do not think that a very elaborate auswer is necessary, if 
we have thus far gained insight of Peters's meutnl habits. 
But, first, there iauo charge that be invented the phrase "Blue 
Laws." Trumbull furnisheH ample proof that tlie term was 
familiar before Peters used it.^ Again, he did not forge its 
special application to New Haven, The satirical pamphlet of 
Koah Welles, which Trumbull quotes,^ jmts the pbrase "Blue 
Laws at Hew Haven" into tbe mouth of the typi(;a] cburcb- 
man, as if it were a common phrase in 1TC2. A passage in 
Smith's History of New York' speaks of the "first records of 
the colony of New Haven, vulgarly [commonly) called the Blue 
Laws." Tbia distinguished cbief justice of New York liap- 
Itened to be in New Haven in 1T67 as one of the commissioners 
appointed to adjust tbe boundary line between New York and 
Massachusetts. He took tlic opportunity to satisfy his curi- 
osity about tbe Blue Laws, and was banded the first book of 
New Haven records "as tbe only volume in the office passing 
under this odd title." He was surprised to find bow far the 
|M>pular notion of early New Haven severity was exaggerated. 

Ila sayii: Few Ihere are who speak of the Bine Laws ■ • • who ilo 
not imagine tlipy fomi n rode or raica for fiitiire condnct, ilrawo tip by an 
eiithuBiaxtic preciiie set of religion is ts, and if the invention of wit«, 
biiinonatH, and buffoons were to bo Frtititod,they muxt coiiiist of man j 

e "farKHl legal entet," wlitcli Rev. C. Hamiiiaiiil (Conn. Viilley Hiat.S<<«. 
X IDS) Blludri to )■ (irubalily Ibnt n( tlia negro wbo caiilniml bl* maitci'i 
vaiit nr an si|>r»ii lnw oii tbt> aabject ■■■ Iruatod nrrunling to Ibe H<wiii! 
Iljil.rauii.,pp.KS-a<l.| PMf-niMiyi tlie caw orcurred "above Mycnn brd.'' 

dMcHliln; Iha.t oirenn. IhavBikot bren Blilotoeinmiue thewulun laWFi 
anil 17M to 1*11 JuKt ubnt jear it was paaanl. but know tbat Ita eDacUwDt 
Mue ptiut between Ihme datca. Tba penalty «u inula iliuitli. It m.-«oib 
lat unne aiwh event aa Ibut wlilib Pvtera di'icrtbcK really loak place and 
lelaw. Unngbwa'a alteiilloD waaallTactad by tlilH atatute, and li« tnculiona 
F'alae Ultie Lawi.pp. U-^l. 

ioIiodllitaiTurilew Vark(piiatbunou>l. p.ta. 



the selectman under the Blue Laws found it bis duty to pnniBh every con- 
travention to tlio decorum enjoined by the broa<l commanduientfl of 
Heaven. The good men and good wives of the new society were admon- 
ished and fined for liberties daily corrected, but never made criminal by 
the laws of large and well-poised comnninitiea.' So far is the common 
idea of the Blue Laws being a collection of rules from being true, that 
they are only records of convictions consonant, in the judgment of the 
magistrates, to the word of God nnd dictates of reason. 

Then follows this very preguaiit passage:^ 

These remarks were by the author communicated to Mr. Hutchinson, of 
Boston, then one of the commissioners, and to other gentlemen of emi- 
nence in the colony and of the very town of New Haven, who heard them 
as novelties, nor would the former ndopt them till he had recourse next 
day to the records themselves. 

I submit that it is certain by tbe language of tbis judicial 
and veracious writer tbat tbe couviction that ancient New 
Haven bad possessed a code of sucli signal severity as to jus- 
tify tbe title "blue laws'' w«as prev«alent in New York, in 
MassacbusettSy and in tbe very town of New Haven itself, not 
only among tbe common people, but among men of education 
and station, including judges and statesmen.^ It is not our 
business to account for tbe origin of tbis conviction.^ Suffice 
it tliat the Kev. Samuel Peters was bred in tbis conviction, 
surrounded by it, shared it fully, Tbe discoveries of Judge 
Smitb did not undeceive bim, for tliey were not published till 

'Truralntll omiU tho paragraph down to thin point. 

"Which Triinihull likowiso omits to append to his hmg quotation from Smith. 

i' Trumbull (True and Fnlno Blue Law8, p. 24) thin I<h tho notion of Kow Uaven blue 
laws ftroMO botwofn 1720 nnd 1750. There is reason to bcliovo it older. Warfl'ii Trip to 
New England. puhiiahe<l in 1009* pictures New Ilaven ati specially severe in her criminal 
Justice, which ho cnriciituros by rrproseulin^ that uU her iubabitants had lie«n 
" whippt^d for some niitulrmoanor or other except two, tho iniutstor and tho justice." Of 
course VVanl was n scandal mon;;;er. but scandal mon^^crsare llie liest witnosscs when the 
rer}* qneHtion wo are Hceking to answer is, what was tho current goasip— what were the 
popular notions afloat. 

^rrobiildy it had its rise from two main facts: (1) New Haven, by the actof April. 1644. 
placed her judicial system more formally upon the basis of the Mosaic code than did any 
other colony. (2) New Haven never had a jury, hut loft full determination Iwlli of tho 
hiw and the fact to the jud;;nient of the i;ovornor and his associates on the bench. The 
})Ossibilities of tyranny inherent in such a system impressed the Massaohusotts histo- 
rian, Hubharr. (Ilist. of New Kn^innd,p.3.')2), who. writing in 1682, describes the Now 
Haven system, and adds. 'What more can be done for tho ostabllsbment of arbitrary 
power? He seems fo hnve believed that tbe execution of criminal Jnatice there was, in 
fact, i>eculiarly severe, for he remark** in anotlier place (Hist. New Eng., p. 323, in Mesa. 
H ist. So<\ ('oils scr 0, voN. 4-5) : " Tlicy were very vigorous in the execntion of Justice, 
and esiHK'ially the punishnicnt of otteiulers." This of course was written from his stand- 
point of familiarity with MuHHiichuHctts justiCiO. The passage proves nothing as to the 
fact, but 18 evidence ns to the oyiinion thus cnrly cherished regarding New Haven. See 
alsot'otton Mather's remarks on Daveniiort, his severity, and tbe failure of his (Jbnreli- 
state, Magna I ia, Vol, I, p. :t2H. 

1824, forty-three years after the General History of Connecti- 
cat was written. Printed records and treasuries of manuscripts 
were not available to him as to us. Had they been he had no 
critical instinct or training to have enabled him to reach cor- 
rect results, though he migtit have made fewer errors. In this 
lant observation lies the rest of the story. He probably heaped, 
together notes for his book, gathered from various sources, but 
with no care whatever to indicate whence he got them. When 
he came to write he could no longer tell, in many instances, 
even the title of the book which he wished to quote or whence 
his extracts were taken. We have seen that he seldom men- 
tions more than the name of the author; that once, when he 
attempts to name a title, the result is completely wrong; that 
he could confound Wliitefield with James Davenport, and mix 
up dates and events when such transference could not serve 
a malign purpose. 

He could pronounce the laws of Connecticut " decent" in com- 
parison with the blue laws^ of New Haven, yet in the same 
breath condemn as '^ intolerable" a Connecticut statute which 
he had already included in the New Haven Code. What par- 
ticular point could he have been seeking by intentionally ex- 
posing himself to his enemies by such a transparent inconsist- 
ency T No, all this points to the slovenly habits of a mind 
unmethodical in the extreme. When in his careless notes he 
came upon any excerpt embodying an unusually severe law, or 
when he conjured such a one up from his own memory, the 
ruling passion, the strong prepossession would incline him to 
assign it to the dead limbo of New Haven. Yet he did not 
claim that New Haven monopolized this kind of legislation. 
Indeed, he expressly says in one place that <'Tlie laws made 
by the governor and council of Hartford are, in general, much 
of the same stamp as those of the New Haven legislators,"^ 
and in another, " Similar laws still prevail over New England,"^ 
both of which statements were fully justified by the facts.* 
The statutes of Connecticut up to 1750 have already been suf- 
ficiently quoted. But I have examined the Connecticut Acts 
and Laws of 1761) — tlie very copy, by the way, that lay in the 
clerk's office of Peters'sown town of Hebron — and this is what 
I find: Courtship without consent, directly or indirectly, was 

■ Gen. Hint, of Conn., p. 8Js " TreApoHH by niglit." 


* J. HaminoDd Tnimbnll treatii the nftinnation an boini^ tranAparently absunl. (Trae 
and Falae Blue Lavs, p. 42.) But Petera did not pointedly refer to cutting the hair 
round and toinintM* piea and then nay, "thoy or Himilnr lawn ati!! pn^vail over Now Kn;r- 
land.'* He aaid that them woni » vast number of Blui^ LawM and that similar lows Htill 
prevailed over New England. 


against the law,' It was forbidden to play at cards, dice, 
tables, and otlier old-time games.' Cliildren innst be educated 
or they wonid bo taken away from tlieir varcnts.' Travel on 
the Sabbatli day was against tlie law.' Tlie jierson auspectcd 
of trespass by niglit or nf secret assault must prove au alibi 
or be jmnislied as gnilty." '^Direct, express, presnniptaous, 
and liigli-handed hlaspbemy" was threatened with deatfa.^ No 
young man under 21 , or young womnti under 18, wns to be out 
afterOo'clockatiiightwithoutthe approbation of their parents.' 
Young people nniHt not meet in roinpaiiy, unless for religious 
pnqioses, on Saturday or Sunday evening.' These or similar 
statutes, which we will not refer to more particularly, were to 
be found all over New England.* 

We conclude, then, tliat Peters, in npite of bis blnnders, 
does not serionsly misrepresent the spirit of the stenier side 
of New England legislation, and that patriotic souls'* have no 
real cause to complain. The justitif^ation for such legislation, 
which may in some degree be possible; theconsiderationof the 
question bow far it was really put into practice, especially in 
the case of capital laws; and all comparison between it and 
the legisliition of other colonics or of Old England, which 
wonid possibly show our fatliers in ndvancc of thcirtimes, lies 
entirely without the province of this puiKT. 

■ lb., !>. 30. 'Ui., lip. 1"!. 1M. ' H.„ p. 173. 

•lL..]i 2.'«. • ■IIl.P IKi. 

■At Nrot sl'UFv onnmlRlit lift hi* uyelirnwa at Iho Htnlpnipnt thai tlie " VRKtm 
ori>l<i» InwH in Krw Uiiveii -'werii nil' unrtillMl |t. ('..■aiicttuDcd] ivilli excDiniu 
roniliraiinn, llnrik bnnliliiiirntH, <vhi]i]>tnEn. cutting nd Iho run. Iiiirnlns tiio to 
ib-Mli" (I'Pl'rii.ii.Oll. I'm Uienv iHnilnlimcnU noro nil iiniviiloci for by iai>, e; 
nf -'rutlliiK nir tliB oin." I iln iiul nmcnibcr ■ rccnnlHl iiue of IIiIh kluil in Ni 
Yvl Ihcrr mnr liavn brrn. I'he dlMTftltin ffliirli wml l«R tn th<' conrt in Ihe pi 
ofHno- iXTeiiuMi wonlit hikIid It pmnlble. Tbnn. bj lhe<:n<lD at lOSi, tbeiHK:and< 
riirpnirini>*wc>ringiiri'iin>ln)iwM tn be lolloweil by ntilpiiiiiE- llulirihemri 
ciimlng both cxlnlpil In tlio ■nin> i-unipblliil. Iho nm^niler wnn to be ].iin»be(l ( 
birKF flnsoT "corpnnlly by dno •PTCrit]'. Mlbo conrt sImiII jntlEeineet." E>l 
iria (low in MiuiuicbuwtlH. I'etorn mlfibt iiitve willed llie plltory nod llie nlo 
raiihiSiie Hud liD«nnMli*vnu*iueilBbuutevory niiidrurpiiiiiabniotitlbai IlieN 

wiiH I'hleHy ■ iimnii nf dt-lpuliim till ttie trbil or Iho imnlsIiniPiit proper iwild t 
Hlliie »r thii iNilrlatic' niilribi ren>iirli-< o<iiii|iUeFiiny that the lull oT KlRhts rn 

umiH't on-lvil Kovt-rninml. ' iriliJH Iw Inic. Ihcii thi- telibrmlrd cIbuim in Uig 

wh -•'tli»llillofKI;<lii|m>p1u'Ib-r.iic'.>tahti>llhi>"Anien 

inoio llinn t no i'.-iitiiri<-~ niid a hairlK'riirx A rka wiu cUw-ovuml. iSi^o W. L. I 

arlii'lnlu New lingluiiler, VuL XXX, p. Kid.) 





[I] The governor nud magistrates convened In general assembly are the 
snpreme power under God of this independent dominion. 

[2] From the determination of the assembly no appeal shall be made. 

[3) The governor is amenable to the voice of the people. 

[4] The governor shall have only a single vote in determining any ques- 
tion, except a casting vote when the assembly may bo equally divided. 

[5] The assembly of the people shall not be dismissed by the governor, 
but shall dismiss itself. 

[6] Conspiracy against this dominion shall be pnnished with death. 

[7] Whoever st^ys there is power and Jurisdiction above and over this 
dominion shall suffer death and loss of property. 

[8] The judges shall determine controversies without a jury. 

[9] Whoever attempts to change or ovei*turn this dominion shall suffer 

[10] No one shall be a freeman, or give a vote, unless he be converted 
and a member in full communion of one of the churches allowed in this 

[II] No man shall hold any office who is not sound in the faith and faith- 
ful to this dominion, and whoever gives a vote to such a person shall pay 
a fine of £1; for a second offense he shall be disfranchised. 

[12] Each freeman shall swear by the blessed God to bear true allegiance 
to this dominion, and that Jesus is the only King. 

[13] No Quaker or dissenter from the established worship of this domin- 
ion shall be allowed to give a vot<e for the election of magistrates or any 

[14] No food or lodging shall be afforded to a Quaker, Adamite, or other 

[15] If any person turns Quaker, ho shall be banished and not suffered 
to return hut upon p»in of death. 

[16] No priest shall abide in this dominion; he shnll be banished, and 
suffer death on his return. Priests may be seized by anyone without a 

[17] No one to cross a river but with an authorized ferryman. 

[18] No one shall run on the Sabbath day, or walk in his garden or 
elsewhere, except reverently to and from meeting. 

[19] No one shall travel, cook victuals, make beds, sweep house, cut hair, 
or shave on the Sabbath day. 

[20] No woman shall kiss her child on the Sabbath or fasting day. 

[21] The Sabbath shall begin at sunset on Saturday. 

[22] To pick an ear of corn growing in a neighbor's garden shall be 
deemed theft. 

[23] A person accused of trespass in the night shall be judged guilty, 
unless he clear himself by his oath. 

[24] When it appear-s that an accused has confederates, nnd he refuses 
to discover them, he may be rackeil. 



[25] No one shall buy or moH landn without pcrmiHsion of tlio selectroen. 

[26] A drunkard shall have a master appointed by the selectmen, who 
are to debar him from the liberty of buying and selling. 

[27] Whoever publishes n lie to the prejudice of his neighbor shall sit in 
the stocks or be whipped fifteen stripes. 

[28] No minister nhall keep a school. 

[29] Every ratable person who refuses to pny his proportion to the sup- 
port of the minister of the town tr parish shall be fined by ttie court £2 
and jC4 every quarter, until he or she pay the rate to the minister. 

[30] Men stealers shall suifer death. 

[31] Whoever wears clothes trimmed with gold, silvet:, or bono lac^e, 
above two shillings by the yard, shall be presented by the grand jurors, 
and the Kelcctmen shall tax the offender at £300 estate. 

[.32] A debtor in prison swearing he has no estate shall be let out and 
sold to make satisfaction. 

[33] Whoever sots a fire in the woods, and it burns a honse, shall suffor 
death, and jtersonH KUHpected of this crime shall l>e imprisoned without 
benefit of bail. 

[34] Whoever brings cards or dice into this dominion shall pay a fine 
of £5. 

[35] No one shall rea<l Common Prayer, keep Christmas or Saints' days, 
make minced picH, dance, play cards, or play on any instrument of music 
except the drum, trumpet, and jew*s-harp. 

[36] No gospel minister shall join people in nmrriagc; the magistrates 
only shall join in marriage, aH they may do it with less scandal to Christ's 

[37] When parents refuse their children convenient marriages, the 
magistrates shall detenu i no the point. 

[38] The selectmen, on finding children ignorant, may take them away 
from their parents and put them into better liniids, at the expense of 
their parents. 

[39] Fornication shall be punished by ('(unpelling marriage, or as the 
court may think proper. 

[40] Adultery shall be punished with death. 

[11] A man that strikes his wife shall pay a fine of £10; a woman that 
strikes her husband shall be puniHhed .is the court directs. 

[42 J A wife shall be deemed good evidence against her husband. 

[43] No man shall court a maid in person, or by letter, without fir*t 
obtaining consent of her parents; £5 penalty for the first offense; £10 for 
the second; and for the third, imprisonment during the pleasure of the 

[44] Married persons must live together or be imprisoned. 

[45] Every male shall have IiIh hair cut round according to a cap. 






By Alkbrt C. Batks. 

The war of the revolution being ended, the national Con- 
stitution ratitied and adopted, and a season of hopefulness if 
not of actual prosperity entered upon, the citizens of Connecti- 
cut, at the opening of the last decade of the eighteenth cen- 
tury, looked ui)on their State house and felt it due to the dig- 
nity of the State that they should tear down and build greater. 

Accordingly, the general assembly in May, 1792, appointed 
a committee, consistiug of John Chester, !N^oadiah Hooker, 
John Caldwell, John Trumbull, and John Morgan, five promi- 
nent citizens of Hartford, to build a '^ large and convenient 
State house,'' the State agreeing to pay £1,500 toward the 
expense of building on condition that the citizens of Hart- 
ford — city, town, and county — would contribute a like amount. 
This the citizens appear to have been ready to do, and a sub- 
scription paper was oi>ened on the 1st day of Jnne. The 
first and largest subscription was that of Jeremiah Wadsworth, 
the commissary-general of the revolution, for $500. He was 
followed by Mayor Thomas Seymour for $150, and he. by 
Greorge Wyllys for $130. Next come three of the five mem- 
bers of the committee — John Trumbull, John Caldwell, and 
John Morgan — for £50, £40, and $120, respectively. Such 
other prominent names appear on the paper as Barnabas 
Deane, Chauncey Goodrich, Oliver Ellsworth, Noah Webster, 
jr., Jesse Boot, Andrew Kingsbury, and Nathaniel Terry. 
The whole amount subscribed on this paper was about £1,100, 
or over $3,600. In aid of the project the city also gave 
$3,500, and the county $1,500. 

This was a formative and critical period with the country; 
the ship of state was not yet under full sail and certain head- 
way; money was scarce; the old currency was very much 
depreciated or utterly worthless ; the new government was just 



beginning to issue coin, bat as yet only in small quantities. 
In short, no worse time could have been chosen in which to 
devise mg^ns for the payment of the expense of erecting a 
large public building. 

Foreseeing difficulty in raising the necessary amount, the 
building committee applied to the assembly, in May, 1793, for 
the privilege of a lottery, which was granted, and the follow- 
ing month they issued a ^^ scheme'' of the Hartford State House 
Lottery. According to this scheme there were to be 2G,GG7 
tickets issued and for sale at $5 each, amounting to $133,335. 
The same amount, subject to a deduction of 12J per cent, was 
to be distributed in 8,890 prizes varying from $10 to $8,000 
each. The drawing was to commence as soon as three- fourths 
of the tickets were disposed of, and a list of the fortunate 
numbers was to be published iu Hudson and Goodwin's paper, 
the Courant. There were, as the "scheme" announced, less 
than two blanks to a prize. The margin for x>rofit to the (!om- 
mittee was certainly very small, consisting, as it did, of the 
12^ per cent deduction, out of which must be taken the 2 per 
cent usually allowed to agents, and whatever prizes were 
drawn by tickets remaining unsold in the hands of the com- 
mittee. For almost two years the lottery dragged wearily 
along. The drawing did not commence until March, 1795, and 
was completed the following May. Financially it was an 
almost complete failure to the committee. 

Before this date the money already raised toward erecting 
the new statehouse had been expended, work upon the build- 
ing had ce<ased, and the committee were at a loss as to how 
the building was to be completed. But assistance came from 
an unexpected source. In May, 179i, Col. Jeremiah Halsey, a 
prominent citizen of Preston, a lawyer and a veteran of the 
lievolution, and Gen. Andrew Ward, of Guilford, made a 
proposition to the Connecticut general assembly that if the 
Htatc would deed to them its rights in a certain strip, gore, or 
tract ot* land lying west of the Delaware liiver, south of the 
true south line of Massachusetts and north of the north line 
of Pennsylvania, as claimed by that State, they would make 
sale of it in a foreign market and return to the SUite one-half 
of the net proceeds. The proposition did not meet with the 
approval of the assembly. 

The following October the proposition was renewed with 
this statement : That the land had not been claimed by this 


State (Connecticut), being claimed by tbo State of New York 
in pai-t, and in part by Massacbusetts; by tbe latter it bad 
been actually x>art sold to Plielps, Gorbam, and Morris, from 
whom it bad been sold to some rich Europeans; and by New 
York to Hon. liobert Dariier, James Watson, and others, who 
have made considerable settlements tbereon. They offered, if 
tbe assembly would give tbem all tbe right, title, and claim of 
Connecticut, tbat as soon as tbey were in quiet and x)eaceable 
X)08se8sion and had extinguished tbe Indian title they would 
give back to the State one-half of the land or £3,000 in Connect- 
icut State notes. 

Tbo assembly api>ointed a committee to consider tbe matter, 
who reported tbat tbe land lies within the charter limits of 
tbis State and is about 2^ miles wide and 220 miles long. 
About 40 miles at the cast end is claimed by New York, and 
about 40 miles more claimed by Pbelps and Gorbam under 
title from Massachusetts, and considerable numbers have 
settled under sucb two claims. The committee made this 
report October 31 and were continued until tbe following May, 
1795, when tbe matter was revived and was rei)eatedly under 
consideration. Then, as it is described in a' subsequent 
account, tbe previous offer made by Halsey and Ward not 
being promptly accepted and tbe court-house being at a stand 
and nnffnished, and tbeir mind being led thereto by some of 
tbe house members, tbey made tbe following offer: That 
whereas they have made propositions which are now pending, 
and whereas the statehouse is at a stand and without any 
immediate prospect of the said house being iiuished, the sub- 
scribers beg leave to proix)se that if the assembly will grant 
to them a release deed and the benefit of the previously 
described gore or tract of land, tbey will complete said house 
within two years according to the i)roposed plan of said build- 
ing, and will give security for the faithful perfornumce thereof. 
This memorial was referred to a committee, on whose rei)ort 
the prayer of the petitioners was granted in tbe lower house 
and negatived in the upper house. A committee of conference 
was appointed; on rci)ortof which committee, and reconsidera 
tion, the upper house at first adhered to their first vote, but 
soon after on further reconsideration granted to the memorial- 
ists all lands lying east of a tract of land sold by the United 
States to the Stjite of Pennsylvania, near Presque lie — the 
little corner of Pennsylvania which extends northward to 


Lake Erie; ou which the lower house concurred, and by a bill 
iu form passed the same into an act, in part as follows: 

On the memorial of Andrew Ward and Jeremiah Halsey, showing to 
this assembly that they have heretofore made proposals for purchasing of 
this State all its right, title, and interest in and unto a certain tractor parcel 
of land lying within the original charter limits of this State north of and 
a4ljoining upon the north line of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and 
south of the original charter south line of the Commonwealth of Massa- 
chusetts, extending from the northwest to the northeast corner of Penn- 
sylvania, and that they are willing to receive a conveyance thereof and in 
payment therefor to finish and complete the statehouse now building 
in the city of Hartford, the outside and second story thereof tit for the 
use of the general assembly, by the first day of May next, and the residue 
thereof by the first day of May, 1797, taking to themselves the benefits of 
all materials heretofore purchased for that purpose, the neat avails of the 
lottery heretofore granted and drawn for the purpose, and all monies given 
or granted towards the building of said statehouse, and praying that 
the said land may be conveyed by deed of quitclaim to them upou the 
terms aforesaid. » * * 

lietiolrcd htj this Assanblify That as soon as said Jeremiah and Andrew 
shall have executed and given a bund with sufficient sureties * • « 
iu the penal sum of forty thousand dollars * "" « conditioned that 
tliey, the said Andrew and Jeremiah, da cause the said statehouse to be 
iinished and compleated according to the original design and plan thereof 
" " ^ and also to discharj;e and save this State and the said committee 
harmless of and from all just demands and contracts heretofore made and 
arising in and about the building of said statehoune * <* » bis excel- 
lency the governor be, and he is hereby, re<juested, authorized, andempow* 
ered, in the name and behalf of this State, to execute and deliver to the 
said Andrew and Jeremiah a deed or deeds therein and thereby conveying, 
releasing, and quitting to them, their heirs and jv^signs forever, all the 
right, title, and interest which this 8tate hath iu and to * * * the 
before-descril)ed land * * » And upou the execution and delivery of 
the said bond the said Andrew and Jeremiali are authorized to receive 
from tht; said Coumiittee all the materials already ]>rovided for said state- 
house and also the neat avails of the said lottery heretofore granted and 
drawn for said building. But no other or further lottery or scheme of a 
lottery shall be made upon the grant of the said lottery heretofore made.' 

Passed iu House of Representatives, Juno 5, 1795. 

Test : 

S. Dana, Clerk. 

Concur'd in the upper house. 

Test ; 

Geokge ^VYLLY8, Secretary. 

A few days later Lemuel IJopkius sagely remarks iu a letter 
to Oliver Wolcott — 

Our court-house, which is a kind of Babel fur this State, is in a fair 
way to be finished. Mr. lialsey an<l his associates aie to complete the build- 
ing, according to the original plan, lor a quitclaim deed from the legis- 



latiire of apiecoof }and about two miles wiilo and some hundreds loug 
on the north Hue of Pennsylvauin, caljed the (vorc. Ho has given a bond 
of 40y( 00 dollars, with surety, to porform on his part. The iiuishing of 
the building is estimated at £5,000. On the whole, 1 think that if wild 
lauds with a dubious title, at a vaat distance, and covered with Indians 
will erect our pnblick buildings, school onr children, and expound our 
Bible we are a most favoured people. Those prospects please us, but the 
lapse of time only can shew how much they are magnified by the fog of 

Ou July 25, 1795, Samuel Uuutingtou, governor and coni- 
niaiuler in chief in and over the State of Connecticut, by virtue 
of the iiowers and authorities given and granted by the before- 
meutionetl act, executed a deed or letter patent releasing and 
forever quitclaiming the described land to Ward and Halsey, 
'Hheir heirs and assigns forever, so that neither the State 
of Connecticut nor any i>erson or persons from, by, or under 
the said State shall or by any way or means hereafter have 
any claim, challenge, or demand of any estate, right, title, or 
interest of, in, or to the premises or any part thereof, but from 
all and every action, right, estate, title, interest, or demand of, 
in, or to the premises or any part thereof shall be utterly 
excluded and debarred forever by these presents." 

Let us now examine the aucieiit charters and patents on 
which the claims of the several ))arties at interest were founded. 
lu the year 1G06 the King of England granted to the Coun- 
cil of Plymouth, or the Plymouth Con)pany, a large tract of 
country in America including the whole of the present New 
England and extending from latitude 34<=^ to latitude 45<^. In 
IG20 a new patent was granted to the Plymouth Company 
comprising the territory between the fortieth and forty-eighth 
degi*ees of latitude. In 1G28 the Plymouth Company sold, and 
the following yeiir the King by charter ratified, to an associa- 
tion of gentlemen known as the Governor and Company of 
Massachusetts Bay, all that part of New England extending 
from the Atlantic Ocean westward to the South Sea, and lying 
between parallels 3 miles north of the Merrimac Kiver and 3 
miles south of the Charles River " or of any or every part 
thereof." Here, then, is established the southern boundary of 
Massachusetts. This charter was vacated in 1G84, and a new 
charter was granted seven years later in which ''our colonies 
of Rhode Island, Connecticut, and the Narragansett country'' 
are mentioned as the southwestern boundaries. 
HIST 98 10 


Connecticut obtained lier title tbrougli a patent supposed to 
have been granted by the King to the earl of Warwick in 1C30, 
and a patent granted by Warwick in March, 1631-32, to Vis- 
count Say and Seal, Lord Brooke, and others who commenced 
a settlemeut as early as 1035 at Saybrook, and who sold all of 
their rights to the early Connecticut jurisdiction in 1G44. 
This patent described Connecticut as commencing at tlie Nar- 
ragansett Kiver and extending 40 leagues along the shore 
toward the southwest, and westward to the South Sea. The 
charter granted to Connecticut in 16(>2 by Charles II bounded 
the colony on the north by the Massachusetts Plantation, and 
in longitude running to the South Sea on the west. Here is 
found the source of Connecticut's claim to western lauds. 
Connecticut and Massachusetts were not alone in their claims; 
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Flor- 
ida extended under their respective patents westward to the 
South Sea, although the Mississippi River was finally settled 
upon as the western boundary of all of these grants, the terri- 
tory westward of that river being held by Spain. 

The General (lovernment, as represented by the Continental 
Congress and later by the United States, recognized these 
claims as valid, and urged that the several colonies should 
cede their western lands to the General Government for the 
general good. This was done, in part at least, by all of the col- 
onieSj and some of them, notably Virginia, in 1783, received 
compensation therefor. 

In 1081 William Penn received a royal grant of Pennsylva- 
nia, the territory to extend westward five degrees of longitude 
from the Delaware liiver " and to be bounded on the north by 
the beginning of the three and fortieth degree of north latitude," 
or, as we would say, by latitude 42° north. By this charter a 
considerable proportion of Pennsylvania was taken from terri- 
tory previously included in the royal grant to Gounecticut) 
and this was the cause of long and bitter controversy and 
much bloodshed in the Wyoming Valley between Connecticut 
and Pennsylvania settlers. The matter was finally settled by 
the decree of Trenton in 1782, which gave the disputed terri- 
tory to Pennsylvania. The history of this controversy does 
not concern the Gore title, and is too long to be considered 

One further complication appears in connection with Con- 
necticut's claim to western lauds. The early charters expressly 


except in their grants any territory previously granted or set- 
tled by the subjects of any other (Christian prince. Hence, 
the settlements by the Dutch around New York and up the 
Hudson Kiver, as well as the Dutch claims to all of the terri- 
tory between the Hudson and Connecticut rivers, caused much 
controversy. New York having fallen into the hands of the 
English and been granted to the Duke of York in 1604, a 
royal commission was appointed the same year to determine 
the boundaries between the two colonies. This commission 
decided that the " western bounds of said Colony of Connecti- 
cut" should be at Momoronock Creek, about 12 miles east of 
West Chester, practically the present boundary line. No men- 
tion is made of western lands in this decision, but Connecticut 
did not consider that her claims to such lands were annulled, 
for Governor Saltonstall, writing to the board of trade in Lon- 
don in 1720, says that the New York government has "cut us 
asunder." A second patent was granted to the Duke of York 
in 1074, where, as in the former patent, the western boundary 
of New York is defined as the east side of Delaware Bay. 
And the Delaware River, the extension of Delaware Bay, is 
described as the western boundary by Governor Tryon, of New 
York, in 1774, in a report to the lords of trade and plantations. 
The Massachusetts charter grant was also cut asunder by 
New York, and in 1708 Massachusetts made a formal claim to 
her lands lying west of the New York settlements. The mat- 
ter remained unsettled until after the Revolution, when, in 
1784, Massachusetts appealed to Congress for a vindication of 
her claims, and a special commission or court was appointed 
to hear and determine the matter. The agents of the two 
States were unable to decide upon the judges who should con- 
stitute this court; so, by mutual agreement, having been given 
full power by their respective States, the agents met in Hart- 
ford, and on December 10, 1780, signed articles of agreement 
substantially as follows: Massachusetts was to cede to New 
York all her jurisdictional claim to western lands, and in 
return New York was to cede to Massachusetts all territorial 
claim to all her lands lying west of a meridian line running 
northward from a point 82 miles west of Pennsylvania's north- 
east corner. This agreement was carried out, and thus did 
New York acknowledge the right of Massachusetts to western 
lands under her ancient charter grants. Massachusetts sold 
this large tract for $1,000,000. 


Que farther point remains to be ooasidered, namely, iu what 
latitude was the line 3 miles soutL of the Charles River, which, 
by their charters, formed the dividing line between Massa- 
chasetts and Connecticut. Woodward and Safiery, who ran 
the line for Massachusetts in 1642, locate it in 41^ 55' north 
latitude; while Butcher and Whitney, under appointment from 
Connecticut in 1G95, make it 42^ 3', which is the latitude of 
the line to day. The Gore proprietors, by their own surveyor, 
established the line at 42^ 2', or about 2^ miles north of the 
forty-second parallel. 

To recapitulate, these charter grants leave to Connecticut 
beyond her pi^sent western boundar}', after allowing the 
grants to the Duke of York and to William Penn, a strip of 
territory about 2^ miles wide extending westward from the 
Delaware lliver about 245 miles, bounded north by New York 
and south by Pennsylvania. This is the tract known as the 
Gore. Also a vast tract extending from the west bounds of 
Pennsylvania to the Mississippi liiver, and bounded north by 
Lake Erie and the Massachusetts grants, and south by lati- 
tude 41^, which proved to be the southern boundary of Con- 
necticut under her charter. A portion of this tract became 
known later as the Western liesei ve. 

Ward and Halsey having received their deed on July 25, 1795, 
immediately entered with zeal upon the task of completing the 
statehousc, and in the following two months expended about 
$8,000 in the work. They apparently found themselves unable 
to continue alone and advance the funds needed to complete 
the building and to place their land upon the market. So in 
September, Ilalscy having previously purchased Ward's inter- 
est, several persons united with him in forming an association 
known as the Connecticut Goro Land Company, with Ifalsey 
as president, to which company the Gore land was transferre<l ; 
each member of the company holding an undivided interest 
in the company's land of from one-twelfth to five-twelfths, 
this greatest amount being held by John Bishop. By the 
end of the following month (October) it became necessary for 
the proprietors to advance £300 on each twelfth for carrying 
on the building of the statehouse. At the same time 50,000 
acres of the laud were offered for sale, but probably none was 
actually sold to settlers. 

By April, 1796, twenty-five deeds had been passed and the 
value of the whole property as shown by them had risen from 


$50,000 to 9400,000. These deeds were first recorded at large 
on the State's records and then entered in the Gore Company's 
book of deeds by the proprietors' or company's clerk. At this 
time the title of the property was transferred to five trnstees 
or af^cnts, namely, Jeremiah Halsey, Hezekiah Bissell, Jacob 
Ogden, John Bishop, and Thomas Bull, who were to act for the 
company, and "scrip" or stock shnres were issued, eacl| scrip 
representing one ninety-sixth interest in the whole. Two taxes 
were laid by the company which were promptly paid, one of 
$7, the other of $5, on each ninety-sixth. Later, each ninety- 
Mxth or share was subdivided into fourths, making in all 384 
shares or "scrips," although a share was usually spoken of as 
one four-hundredth. 

May G, 1796, the proprietors' agents memorialized the gen- 
eral assembly saying "that the building of the statchouse has 
been so ftir performed, as is visible to your honors," that they 
ought to become entitled to all the benefits and advantages of 
the Gore property, but that they were unjustly impeded by the 
intei^erenco of the legislative authority of the State of New 
York, which, since the commencement of the current year, 
"moved thereto by the intrigue and address of artful and 
designing men of that State," had i)assed and published a 
most unreasonable and arbitrary act and issued a proclamation, 
which were herewith presented for inspection, "by which 
your memorialists and all others are forbidden to settle upon 
or to claim said land under the State of Connecticut, whereby 
it is intended to. prevent the memorialists from proccediDg or 
rendering said lands useful or profitable to themselves or to 
mankind." The assembly was asked to declare the right of 
Connectiout "and at the expense of the memorialists to ado]>t 
such effectual means for the security of said proi>orty as to 
your honors may seem meet." 

The act of New York here referred to was indeed arbitrary 
and unreasonable. After reciting the fact that certain persons 
under pretense of title from Connecticut had laid cLiim to a 
considerable territory within the limits of the State, and had 
attempted to draw into question the jurisdiction of the State 
and defame the titles of iiersons now holding the lands, it 
made it tlie duty of the person administering the government 
(that is, the governor) to remove or cause to be removed all 
persons so intruding, settling, or taking possession of any land 
and to cause all the buildings of snch i)ersons to be destroyed. 


Several buildings were in fact burned under authority of this 
act. To carry out the above instructions the governor was 
authorized to order out any part of the militia from any part 
of the State, who were to be subject to the same rules as pro- 
vided by law when called out in case of invasion or any other 
emergency. Any iierson who should pretend to have, or to 
buy or sell, any right or title under authority of Connecticut 
should be deemed guilty of a public offense and high misde- 
meanor ngainst the people of the State, should be prosecuted, 
and upon conviction should bo punished by fine and imprison- 
ment, and if a resident of the State should be disqualified 
from ngain holding ofiice. The faith of the State was pledged 
to carry out the provisions of this act. 

Truly this act might well have made the Gore proprietors 
hesitate. They persevered, however, and a few persons 
attempted a settlement in the face of these threats. The 
result was the bringing of two test cases in the circuit court 
of the United States for the district of Connecticut, the suits 
being Samuel Fowler and Joseph Lyman (who as lessees or 
purchasers represented the claims of the Gore proprietors) 
against Abraham Miller, and against Mary, Samuel, and 
Rbenezer Lindslcy, Moses Mulford, John Seeley, Henry Whelp- 
lej', and Ebenezer Bachns, who held the land under title from 
Kew York. Samuel Kowler was a resident of West field and 
Joseph Lyman of Northampton, Mass. The piec^ of land in 
question in these suits w^as about 00 miles west of the north- 
east corner of Pennsylvania, and began about 10 chains north 
of the north line of Pennsylvania, about the location of the 
present town of Lindley, Steuben County, N. Y. 

The suit against Miller was tried in the Connecticut circuit 
court, which sat in Hartford on the 17th and 18th of Septem- 
ber, 170G, presided over by William Cushing and Richard Law, 
and Miller failing to appear it was decided in favor of the 
plaintiffs, Messrs. Fowler and Lyman, who were granted the 
damages asked, $1,000, together with the costs of the suit. 
The defiendant asked for a new trial, averring the manifest 
injustice of the decision, in that the writ served upon him 
dated, " District of Connecticut, ss.. Gore, September 12, 
1790," only hwo days before the sitting of the court, made it 
im])0ssil)le for him to reach Hartford before the court's adjourn- 
ment after its two days' session; that the plaintiffs had only 
claimed a right to the land for about a month, and in that 


short period could not liave sustaiaed $1,000 damage; and 
that the land was in fact in the district of New York^ and not 
in the district of Connecticut. A new trial was granted, to be 
heard in the same court in September, 1707; but its outcome 
is not known, and probably this suit was merged in some way 
with the Lindsley suit. 

When the second suit (the Lindsley suit) was called in Sep- 
tember, 179C, the defendants, representing New York, moved 
for its continuance until the next term of the court, which was 

Again, the case was called in April, 1707, before Associate 
Judge Samuel Chase, and again the defendants gained time 
by obtaining a further continuance, although the plaintiifs 
strongly urged for an immediate trial. The people of New 
York were not idle during these and later continuances. On 
five separate occasions did they ap[ieal to their Representa- 
tives in Congress to obtain some action which would give any 
place other than the Connecticut circuit court for a trial of the 
cause in question. The opinion everywhere prevailed that the 
Connecticut claim made by the Gore proprietors was valid 
and would be so decided by the court. So strong was this 
opinion that about this time the Gore proprietors received an 
offer of $300,000 for their property; but valuing it at almost 
twice that sum, they declined the offer. 

In August, 1707, a petition was addressed to the President 
of the United States by Colonel Halsey asking that during 
tlie pending of the suits Messrs. Ogden and Morris, who held 
under title from New York, might be prevented from taking 
any steps toward acquiring the Indian title to the Gore lands. 
About the same time Colonel Bissell.was chosen to effect a 
pnrchase or extinguishment of the Indian title for the Gore 
Company's agents. Apparently he was unsuccessful in obtain- 
ing a warrant to hold a treaty with the Indians for that pur- 
pose. The following December one Nathan Teals, an official 
of the State of New Y'ork, offered to obtain for the Gore pro- 
prietors the rights to an old Indian lease given to Obadiah 
Gore and others at a public treaty in 1786 which covered a con- 
siderable part of the territory in question. The lease was for 
an annual rental of $200 to continue so long as trees shonld 
grow or waters run. This lease the proprietors' agents suc- 
ceeded in obtaining. This interest of Teals in the Gore Com 
pany caused him to be brought into a New York court and 


placed on trial for having spoken too freely in favor of Con- 
necticut's claim to tlio Gore lands. The trial resulted^ how- 
ever, in his ac(jaittal. 

The case was again called at ITartford September 18, 1797, 
before the circuit court for the district of Connecticut, pre- 
sided over at this session by William Gushing, the first repre- 
Rentalive of New England upon the Supreme Court bench. 
The jurors were present as well as the counsel — Me^jsrs. 
Thcophilus Parsons, Alexander Hamilton, and Josiah Ogden 
Hoffman for the defendants, and James Sullivan, the attorney- 
general of MassachuHctts, for the plaintiffs — and all seemed 
ready for a speedy trial of the cause, when the dofendantB 
brought forward a now objection to proceeding. The jury was 
arrayed by Deputy Marshal Jonathan Janes, under authority 
of Miirshal Philip B. Bradley. Janes had at this time a direct 
interest in the Gore lands, of which the demanded promises 
were a part, doubtless as an owner of scrij) in the (iore Com- 
pany, and the defendants raised the point that he was thereby 
disqualified to act in the matter of collecting a jury to try a 
cause in which he was personally interested. They further 
claimed that this being a question between Connecticut and a 
sister State, each and every inhabitant of Conneotitrut was 
directly interested, and therefore unable to sit as a juror or to 
act as marshal, and argued that the case should be at once 
taken to the United States Supreme Court, by which court, 
they added, the question must eventually be decided. At this 
point Sullivan, acting for the plaintiffs, offered to have the 
present jury quashed and a new one impaneled, if the other 
side would agree. But they, seeing a prospect for a still 
further postponement, refused to accede to this proposition. 

The court, after listening for three and one-half days to the 
arguments pro and con on these new ((uestions, decided that a 
deputy marshal who had an interest in the lands in question 
must of necessity be more or less biased, and was therefore 
incompetent to act in collecting a jury for the case. This was 
a seeming victory for the defendants (New York), but on the 
other hand, while this particuhir jury was rendered incompe- 
tent because arrayed by an interested party, the court decided 
that a Connecticut jury arrayed by a Connecticut marshal was 
fully competent to try the case, " for,'' says the court, <' if (the) 
general i)riliciple of excluding citizens were to prevail in this 
case there could be no trial. This, being a local action, must be 

— J 


tried where tlio land lies. As to the fc^neral qnestion of the 
interest of the marshal," as a citizen, it is << not sufficient, for 
if so minute and remote (an) interest would disqualify, such 
causes would never be tried." The plaintiffs, representing the 
Gore Company, were greatly elated by this action of the court, 
believing that a final decision in their favor was now almost 
within sight. For this was, in effect, a decision that theGore lay 
within the territorial and jurisdictional limits of Connecticut, 
ami these ix)ints decided, the proprietors felt perfectly secure 
in their title as received from the State. This, however, was 
not a decision on the merits of the case, but showed what the 
final decision must be. 

So much time had already been consumed, and it appearing 
that it would take ten or twelve days to try the ease, and 
further, as the presiding judge must in a few days leave for 
Vermont, it was continued to the next term of court, to be held 
at New Haven in the following April, seven months later. 
Thus was the trial again postponed. At the instance of the 
New York members a bill was introduceil into the next Con- 
gress "to allow removal of cases of this nature to places of 
trial where juries may be summoned from districts not inter- 
ested in the controversy." The bill failed to pass, and even if 
it had passed it would have been ex post facto in its relation 
to this case. 

The following month, October, 1797, the Connecticut assem- 
bly passeil a resolve that when the Gore proprietors had settled 
all disputes with the State of New York relative to the territo- 
rial claim, the governor of Connecticut, upon the desire of New 
York and with the consentof Congress, is authorized to transfer 
to New York all jurisdictional right to the Gore. No time limit 
was named within which this settlement and transfer should be 
made. The company, in December, appointed James Wads- 
worth, of Durham ; James Sullivan, of Boston, and Alexander 
Wolcott, of Windsor, as commissioners to negotiate with New 
York for the settlement of all disputes, in order that such 
transfer might be made. New York, however, refused to 
api>oint commissioners and the matter came to naught. This 
act of the Connecticut assembly was believed to still further 
strengthen the company's case by doing away with New York's 
claim that a question of jurisdiction was involved. 

At this time Sullivan withdrew from the case and Edwards 
was invited to act as one of the counsel. He was willing, but 


required a retainer of $000; upon which the company's clerk 
indorsed his letter "Pierpont Edwards, O dreadful," but evi- 
dently paid the money. 

The company now laid another tax of $12.50 on each four 

The circuit court, district of Connecticut, April term, 1798, 
consisted of the circuit judge, William Patterson, of New Jer- 
sey, and the district judge, Kichard Law, of Milford, son of 
Jonathan Law, the colonial governor of Connecticut. After 
the calling of the jury Messrs. Hoffman and Hamilton, coun- 
sel for the defendants, entered nearly the same objections as 
before, but in a more extended and particularized form, namely, 
that Marshal Bradley and the members of the jury, being citi- 
zens of Connecticut, wore incompetent to try the cause, and so 
that it could not be tried in a Connecticut court unless by.a 
jury from another State, but might be tried in a New York 
court, or more jiroperly in the Supreme Court of the United 

To this Messrs. David Daggett and Pierpont Edwards 
replied that the question of the comx)etency of the marshal 
and citizens was settled by the court at its last term ; that the 
law provided no way in which a jury could be summoned 
from another State; that for the plaintiffs to allow the case to 
come before a New York court would be to acknowledge the 
jurisdiction of the State of New York, and so to give up the 
very object for which they were contending. As to the trans- 
fer of the case to the United States Supreme Court, they con- 
tended that there was no process of law by which the case 
could be transferred, and that under the article of the Consti- 
tution reljiting to the judiciary and the "judiciary act," so 
called, creating the Supreme Court, the matter being between 
citizens of the State of Massachusetts and citizens of the 
State of Connecticut did not properly come within its jurisdic- 
tion, which was to be exercised where questions between two 
States were involved. Yet again the case was posti)oned, 
apparently this time with the assent of the plaintiffs, the infer- 
ence drawn from certain letters being that the Connecticut 
parties were not anxious to press the suit when Patterson sat 
as the presiding judge. 

The New Yorkers, at this time, said that they would continue 
to fight the case until it would cost the Gore Company all the 
property was worth even if they tinally won. 


In September, 1798, former tactics not liaviug availeil, the 
defendants were at last able to obtain another contiunance of 
tbe case, apparently for the purpose of baving the United States 
Supreme Court pass upon tbe points wbicb the circuit court 
ba<l already passed upon and decided in favor of the Connect- 
icut claimants. 

At tbe next term of the circuit court, the following April, by 
some misunderstanding which it is impossible to explain, no 
judge ap[>eared, and in consequence the case again went over, 
this time to the September term of 1790. Meanwhile the State 
of New York, in February, 1799, brought before the United 
States Supreme Court an unsuccessful motion for a writ of 
certiorari for the removal of the case from the circuit court of 
Connecticut to the United States Supreme Court. In conse- 
quence of the rejection of this motion New York next filed 
with the United States Supreme Court a motion in the form of 
a bill in chancery or bill in equity for an injunction to prevent 
the case from being tried in the Connecticut circuit court 

On July 20 Governor Trumbull received a citation summon- 
ing the State to appear and make answer to this bill. The 
governor was wary, and on the excuse that he had received no 
copy of the bill and so had no official knowledge as to the 
question nt issue he did not answer the summons, and the 
State was not represented when the case was called at Phila- 
delphia on the 6th of the following month. The Gore proprie- 
tors, who had also been summoned,were, however, represented. 
HofTman, for New York, argued that this was a bill for the 
discovery of title and to settle the question of boundary 
between two States; while Jared lugersoll, for the Connecticut 
Ride, apparently assisted by United States Senator James 
Hillhouse, argued against granting the prayer for an injunc- 
tion. The court, which was com])osed at this session of Chief 
Justice Oliver Ellswortii and Associate Justices William 
Paterson, Samuel Chase, and Bushrod Washington, denied 
the injunction, on the ground that the State of New York was 
not an interested party to the suit, but only the actual defend- 
ants were interested, while they had not asked for an injnnc- ' 
tion. Thus again, this time by the nation's highest tribunal, 
was the Connecticut claim vindicated; for the decision that 
the State of New York was not an interested party was vir- 
tually a decision that tiie State held no jurisdiction over the 
disputed territory and that it lay within the Connecticut 


charter limits, and so at the disposal of the Gonnecticat 

GouniM'ticnt, as a State, not having been represented at this 
hearing, another citation was sent to the governor in October, 
summoning the State to appear at a farther hearing at the 
next session of the Supreme Court, to be held the following 
February (1800). 

In September, 1799, the case was again called in the Con- 
necticut circuit court, this time before Chief Justice Ellsworth, 
a native of Connecticut, but was ngain i)ost[)oned, the rea^oa 
given being "Judge Ellsworth interested," though in what the 
interest consisted that should prevent a trial of the cause does 
not appear. 

The general assembly, at the October session, 1799, appointed 
Judge Jonathan Sturgis, of Fairfield; Hon. Nathaniel Smith, 
of Woodbury; and Eliiis Perkins, of New London (the speaker 
of the house), to act as commissioners, with full power to make 
a settlement of all matters in dispute with New York; or, if 
that inoved impossible, to represent the State in the matter of 
the bill in equity tlien pending. The Oore company named 
$250,000 as tlie sum for which they would be willing to give up 
»lt their claim. This time New York also appointed commission- 
ers, they being Egbert Benson and James Kent, judges of the 
supreme court of that State, and Ezra L'Hommedieu, esq. 
In expectation oC an agreement being reached lietween these 
two commissioners, Chauncey Ooodrich api>eared for Connecti- 
cut, and obtained a continuance of the bill in equity when the 
case was called in Philadelphia in February, 1800. 

Tlie commissioners of the two States agreed ui)on Albany, 
March 25, ISOO, as the place and time for a meeting, but the 
unfortunate illness of Judge Sturgis prevented the meeting 
being held at thnt time. There is good reason to believe that 
had it been hold tiie whole dispute would have been amicably 
settled. The following June a meeting was held, but it was 
then too late to effect any kind of a settlement. 

Another tax was now laid by the company, this time of $10 
}>er sliare. Many shareholders declined or were unable to pay 
this tax, and in conse(iuence their scrip was sold at auction 
to pay tax dues. 

Hefore the next session of the Connecticut circuit court an 
event iiad taken ])lacc which had changed the feelings of the 
(lore proprietors from elation to despair, and which was well 


described by the ouiinent Charles Channcey as a '' strauge, 
anJQsty barbarous, and uulieard-of" proceeding. At the 
request of the United States and following the example of 
other States, Connecticut had in 1780 released to the United 
States the entire jurisdictional and territorial right to all her 
Western lands lying west of a meridian line drawn parallel to 
and 120 miles west of Pennsylvania's west boundary. The 
remaining tract west of Pennsylvania and known as the 
"Western Reserve,^ containing about 5,200 square miles, had 
been sold in September, 1795, to the Connecticut Land Oom- 
pany, but still remained in 1800 under the full control and 
jurisdiction of Connecticut. And Connecticut was probably 
at this time the only State still retaining control of any por- 
tion of her Western lands. Considerable settlements had 
already commenced on the ** reserve,'' but the settlers found 
themselves much hampered in their efl'orts to maintain law and 
order, and, through the curious wording of the deed they had 
received from the State, somewhat in doubt as to their title. 
They coald not be governed by the " Ordinance of 1787" and 
the authority *of the "Northwest Territory," within whose 
limits tliey were situated, because they were within the juris- 
dictional limits of Connecticut; while at this distance, some 
400 or 500 miles, it was practically imi>ossiblo for Connecticut 
to exercise proper jurisdiction. The settlers on the "reserve" 
were therefore very urgent in their desire that Connecticut 
should transfer her jurisdiction to the United States, and in 
October, 1707, the Connecticut assembly passed an act author- 
izing Ler Senators iu Congress to deed to the United States the 
jurisdiction of the reserve. Congress at first refused to ac- 
cept a deed of cession of jurisdiction, but after discussing the 
matter for three Congressional sessions a bill was parsed in 
April, 1800, providing that if within eight mouths the State 
of Connecticut should "by a legislative act renounce forever, 
for the use and benefit of the United States and the several 
individual States who may bo therein concerned respectively 
and all those deriving claims or titles from them or any of 
them," all jurisdictional and territorial right to all lauds west 
of the present east bounds of New York, then the United 
States would cede to Connecticut the territorial right — that is, 
the right of soil — to the Western lleserve, so called, lying 
westward of Pennsylvania. This bill, though nominally hav- 
ing to do only with the Western lleserve, was, through the 


iiiflueuce it is claimed of New York's members in Congress, so 
worded that the rennnciation covered not only the reserve 
but the Gore as well. Here was a temptation which the Con- 
necticut legislature of May, 1800, could not withstand. By 
thus ceding to the United States all territorial and juris- 
dictional right* to tlie reserve and the Gore they would 
receive in return the territorial right to the 3,300,000 acres 
comprising the reserve. The legislature yielded, and in May 
1800, formally renounced the Gore to the United States and to 
the individual States therein concerned. Whereupon New 
York, which had heretofore claimed title but had been unable 
to bring forward sufficient evidence to substantiate such claim, 
at once entered into undisputed possession of the Gore. 

Connecticut had already sold her Western Keserve for 
$1,200,000, the present State school fund, and in effect now 
said to the Gore company, We have renounced jurisdiction 
to your x)roi>erty; but we are a sovereign State, and what can 
you do about it! 

The true reason why Congress should insist ui>on a legisla- 
tive act of renunciation, and why Connecticut should have con- 
sented to pass such an act, is not easily explained. Although 
the territorial right to the reserve was sold in September, 1795, 
the payment for this territory did not become due until Sep- 
tember, 1800, five years later. Connecticut had held both the 
territorial and jurisdictional right under the same title, so that 
the loss of either right necessitated the loss of the other as 
well. The jealousies of various States as to the right of other 
States to hold western lauds had been and still were very 
strong; both New York and Virginia had claimed the reserve; 
some believed that the settlers could of thei r own accord go under 
the authority of the "Northwest Territory;" others apparently 
wished to assume their own juridical rights and form the State 
of New Connecticut; Congress may have exhibited a readiness 
to assume Federal authority over the reserve, as she had over 
Presque Isle, without waiting for a formal cession from Con- 
necticut. Had any of these i)ossibilities happened while the 
purchase money for the reserve was yet unpaid, the State would 
have had the disappointment of seeing her prospective "school 
fund" vanish. She was therefore ready to accede to almost any 
action Congress should propose. Charles Chauncey, in a let- 
ter from Philadelphia to Hartford accompanying a copy of the 
bill, says: "Other considerations do not allow of hesitation as 
to compliance with the terms. They were essential to the pas- 


sage of the bill at this Hession of Congress, and will be so in 
future sessions.'' And speaking of the Gore proprietors, he 
says: ^^If they suffer^ the State must compensate them." 

Here, then, is the condition in which the Gore proprietors 
found themselves when the case again came up in court, where 
it was abated on account of the renunciation act of the Connecti- 
cut legislature. The statehouse had been completed according 
to agreement at a cost variously estimated at from $15,000 to 
$25,000; observations and surveys had been made; the Indian 
title quieted ; and protracted suits carried on in the courts at a 
cost of more than $20,000. The ''scrip" or shares in the com- 
pany had been many times resold, and had cost their present 
holders the sum of $300,000, and the rulings of the courts had 
been almost a guaranty of the final outcome of the suits, when 
by a stroke of the pen the payment for the work upon the State- 
house, ns well as all this prospective fortune, had been taken 
from them. Many of the proprietors now found themselves in 
straitened circumstances, while some who had risked their all 
were ruined. Tlie value of the company's shares immediately 
dropped to almost nothing. Shares were sold for $70, where 
three years previously they had sold for $1,000. 

A year later, in May, 180 i, the legislature, on petition of the 
Gore company's agents, appointed a committee, consisting of 
Sherwood, Pitkin, Trumbull, and Z. Swift, '*to inquire into the 
claims which the proprietors of said land may have on this State 
on account of said contract or anything this State may have 
done relative thereto." The report of this committee, made the 
following October, retlects anything but credit on the sense of 
honor of the State or of the committee. It says, in part — 

That no coDtrnet vnin inado to release to tlic proprietorH of tho Hoil tbe 
jnrisclictioDnl right, nor was any consideration given by them for it. The 
State woald nndonbtedly have been willing to have held the Jurisdictional 
right for the bene Ht of the purchasers of the soil had it not interfered 
with a far greater interest of their own. For if the legislature had not 
renounced jurisdiction, in confoimify to the hofore-uieutionod act of Con- 
gress [April, 1800], they would have sacrificed the Weslern Reserve and all 
the purchase money merely for the purpose of giving the proprietors of 
the Gore a chance to try the question whether the same was within the 
district of Connecticut. 

And the report further says that — 

if Connecticut had jurisdiction and has transferred it to New York, the 
proprietors atill have legal remedy for territorial rights in the district of 
New York. 


Evideiitly tbe cotiiiiiitteti passed over tlio ftict that by a law 
lutule live yeiird previouuly tbu Statu of New York liad iniule 
it aiiactof trcasou for uny pei'son to cluiiu title under uutbority 
iVom Ooiiiiccticut, wliile the reuuiiciatioii act itself not only 
conflrincd tbe title of New York Statu, but alao of individtialti 
dei-iviug: title I'roiu that Stale. 

Tbe eonipany then appealed to New York, at^kiu); for an iti- 
ve»tif;atiou of tUeir claim before an impartial tribuual. Tbe 
New York aeitateappoiutei.1 a eommitteutoiiBistiiig of Attorney- 
General iiofl'maii and Joliu V. Ileury' to iuvestigate ami 
re^Kirt. Their lepoit is uot fouud, but it could not be other- 
wise than unfavorable to the Gore proprietors. Tlie proprie- 
tors also offered to make settlemeut with New York by giving 
II)) all claim t« the iwrtioii alrea<ly settled, begiuuiug at tbe 
vustcrn end and exteiidiii)^ more thau one-thinl of the length 
of tbu Gore. Gr they would accept iu exchange 250 sqaare 
mileu in soiiiu other section of the State. 

Ill May, 180L', the (*o]iipaiiy, by its ugeiits, Thomas Bull and 
Joseph VVoodbi'idfie, again petitioned tbe Gonnecticat assem- 
bly, stating that by tbe lulimiuishmeut of title their suits liud 
been abated, and praying that their unfortunate ease might 
be takeu iuto the assembly's wise and ctjuitiible ooustderation 
and relief granted thciu; but the asaeiubly by a resolution 
voted that nothing should be granted them. Tbe following 
month they offered a second i>etition, stating that by tUia 
leimiiciation they considered their purchnee defeated and 
their proiwity as lost, whereby on every principle of justice, 
honor, nnd right they wore entitled to whatever siiid property 
had cost them and interest, which would surmount tbe sum uf 
4300,OOU. Yet if the assembly would make tbem u'rtnin 
grants, amounting to about $!>3,(HI0, they would give a full dis- 
ebargo and acquittance of every claim, right, and demand. 
Tliis, as might be e.\i>ected, was refused. The following Ucto- 
bt'r(l'SU:!) the same agents again petitioned the assembly. All 
tbu " hoi>eful expectation '' which they hiul bad of some urrauge- 
mont with New York had failed, and tbe assembly's wise and 
just consideration wus invoked for tlieir relief. The upper 
house was willing to grant theui $4U,0U0 if tbe company would 
rcconvey their territorial riglit to the State, but the lower 
house would do nothing. During the following winter another 
tax of $(> per share was laid nt>on the holders of scrip. 


A year later, in October, 1803, they again petitioned the 
assembly. They ^' make no claim on ground of State selling 
them that to which the State had no title; or that they, the 
proprietors, made a bad bargain ; and they acknowledge that 
they bought at their own risk. But the State received a valu- 
able consideration and then, by a legislative act, had deprived 
them of the property they purchased.^ They asked that the 
matter be left to arbitrators. This the assembly negatived. 
The agents at once presented another petition in which, after 
stating that <^ a large portion of the proprietors have from a 
state of affluence been reduced to penary, want, and a state of 
bankruptcy." they offered to settle all claims against the State 
for the sum of (40,000 with interest for one year. The result 
wai< the same as with previous i>etitious. 

Another x>ctition was presented to the assembly in May, 
1804, asking for a grant of (40,000 with interest for three 
years; or they would refer their claim to a committee of disin- 
terested persons, or have the matter entered and decided in 
the superior court or in the United States Supreme Court. 
This petition met with no better success than had former ones. 
Again, a year later, in May, 1805, another ]>etition was pre- 
sented — this time with favorable result. The assembly voted 
to grant to tlie Gore company the sum of $40,000 without inter- 
est, payable in four equal annual payments, on condition that 
the company would, before the 1st of the following July, exe- 
cute and deliver to the State a release, or deed of release, of all 
right and titl^, territorial or judicial, to the Gore lands, of 
all claims or demands for the expense of building the State 
house, and of all claims and demands against the State by 
reason of renunciation of jurisdiction by the State. Thomas 
Ball and Joseph AVoml bridge, two of the five ngents of the 
Gore company, refused to comply with these conditions, and 
the company never did comply with them. Notwithstanding 
which refusal, as though the State was conscious these condi- 
tions ought not to have been annexed to her grant, the money 
was paid to the company in the years 1805, 180C, 1807, and 
1808, and the history of the Connecticut Gore Land Company 
as a company was ended. 

Tbe last scene was when, in 1829, long after the company 
had gone out of existence, and when many of the proprietors 
of the Gore had already paid the debt of nature, Thomas Bull, 
then aged and in actual wtot, once more petitioned the legis- 
lature for a further grant to aid him in his few remaining 
HIST 98 11 



yearly. Plis statement shows that, oveu after the receipt of 
his share of the legislative grant, ]ii^ actaal loss was about 
$23,000, besides interest. So far as the records disclose, no 
grant was made to him. 

in closing we may well quote from the Hartford letter-car- 
rier's address of 1790 this couplet: 

** The staU'honso roof will ]ong record, 
As Gore there once was such a word.'' 

NoTC— The prioclpal authority for the sUiteineDU made in this paper in a seriea of 
nevcral hosdred manaacript lettrra and documenta owned by the ConneoUont Hiatoricrl 
Society, by whoae kind pennisaion they hare been conaiilted and umkI. 

Tbo tbUowing are the cliief printed authoritica that have been conaulted ; 

The Connecticut Gore Title Stated and Considered. Hartford, 1790. 

Tlie Rise, PmgreBs, and Effect of the Claim of the Connecticut Gore Stated and Con* 
aidered. Hartford, 1802. 

An Inquiry Concerning the Grant of tlie I^gialature of Connecticut to Andrew Wanl 
iind Jeraroiah Haltoy. Hartford, 1829. 

Report of the Regents' Boundary Commiaaion upon the Kew York and PesBtylTania 
Boundary. Albany, 1880. 

Trumbull, Beivjamin. A Plea in Vindication of the Connecticut Title to the Conteaied 
Lands Lying West of the Province of Kew York. New Haven, 1774 (aecoml edition). 

Poore. Ben. l*erley. The Federal and State Constitotiona, Colonial Cbartera. Waab- 
ington, 1877. 





1^1 ^ 


By Gborgr B. Landis. 

The study of commanistic Rocieties — those '' small oases of 
oooperation in a wide desert of competition"' — is of interest 
and profit to every social being. Political economy, political 
science, sociology, and religion, each has received a new and 
sometimes fanatical interpretation from these experiments in 
government by compact Movements, pea<*eable or violent, 
toward a more general communism have threatened to turn 
back the^current of history flowing for so many centuries in 
the direction of completely individual ownership of property. 
Bat the acquisition and especially the retention of private 
property, at least in times of peace, demand social relations. 
^< We find in every individual impulses or forces which tend to 
weld society together, to render the idea of self subservient to 
that of the commonweal." ' Communism, in its extremest form, 
is simply the result of this social spirit gone mad. 

A careful examination and truthful account of many isolated 
communistic societies must prove valuable in determining the 
reasons for their establishment, the causes of tlieir success 
and failures, the advantages and disadvantages of such a 
system over the present. 

In the hope of adding something, however little, to the 
solution of these problems, this study is undertaken, yet not 
without some knowledge of the meagerness of the materials to 
be found among the Separatists of Zoar, who have kept no 
records of the society except sucli business accounts as could 
not be dispensed with. No list, even of the names of the first 
settlers, has been preserved. County, State, and United States 
court records, together with the traditions of and some 
acquaintance with Zoar, have formed the basis of what is here 

I Hjndman, in CosmupoliH, January, 1898. 'Seligman, PoL Sci. Qnar., 1. 207. 



The study at this time has greater interest for me because 
the disbaudmeut of the community at Zoar has been so lately 
decided upon and the division of the property is just now 
being made. 

I can not pass to matters more nearly connected with the 
subject in hand without mentioning that I appreciate the 
courtesy of Judge Jacob F. Burket, of the Ohio supreme 
court,'the encouragement of Prof. T. N. Carver, and the minor 
kindnesses of many at Zoar, Oberlin, and elsewhere. 

The contents of the following paper may be outlined as 
follows : 

1. Political and Religious Sute of Wiirtiemberg. 
II. Emigration and Settlement. 

III. The Community until Bimeler's Death. 

IV. After Bimeler's Death. 

V. Sociological Anpect of Zoar. 
VI. Government and Religions Beliefs of the Community. 
VII. Economic and Industrial. 
VIII. Disbandraent. 

IX. Conclusion; Bibliography. 
Appendix : 

I. Articles of AMSociation, April 15, 1819. 
II. Articles of Association, March 18, 1824. 

III. Constitution, 1833. 

IV. Articles of the First Chus. 
V. Act of Incorporation, 1832. 

VI. Amendment to Act of Incorporation, 1846. 


In the first half of the sixteenth century, under DukeUirich I, 
the people of WUrttemberg progressed remarkably in two direc- 
tions — first, politically, when their right to representation and 
to a voice in matters of taxation was acknowledged by the 
Treaty of TUbingen (1514), and, second, religiously, when, 
because of Catholic oppression and the commotion attendant 
upon the Peasants' War (1534), the Duke found it to his 
advantage to accept the principles of the Eeformation as the 
basis of the religious government of WUrttemberg. Since it 
was the oppression of the Government in its ecclesiastical as 
Wrll as its civil capacity which led to the emigration of the 
Separatists in 1817 it will be interesting to review briefiy 
those phases of Wiirttemberg history in their bearing on this 

The Thirty Years' War (1618-1048) had reduced the inhab- 
itants of the Duchy from 400,000 to 50,000. Then followed 
four destructive and brutal invasions (168S-1707) by France 
and the difficulties between Charles Eugene and his subjects 




(1737-1793), which kept the State in continual ferment and the 
|)eo|)le in terror-stricken poverty. Through all, however, had 
stood the Treaty of TUbingen, the Magna Charta of WUrtteni- 
berg, signed by each dnke upon his accession. Although its 
provisions may have been evaded in some particulars, it had 
been in the main enforced by Englaud and the other powers, 
which once and again had guaranteed it. 

Frederick Unbecoming duke in 1797, renewed and confirmed 
the treaty, together with all the concessions of his prede- 
cessors, without, it tfppears, intending to fulfill them. During 
the Napoleonic wars he first engaged in hostilities against 
France; next, accepted the title of Elector from Napoleon and 
took up arms for him, losing 16,000 men in the expedition 
against Moscow; and, finally, after the battle of Leipsic, 
joined the allies in time to be present at the division of the 
spoil. By each of these moves he gained territory and sub- 
jects, though his people found their happiness and liberty cur- 
tailed by the oppression of the Duke, which increased with 
his growing power. Indeed, after January 1', 180G, Frederick 
was no longer Duke, but King of WUrttemberg. Whereupon 
he abrogated the constitution, forbade the assembling of the 
deputations, and transformed the government after the pattern 
of the French Empire, though administrative ability of a high 
order was wanting among his ministers.^ 

Stein bears witness to the result.' 

The old couBtitution of Germany f^uarauteed to each of its inbabitants 
Beoaritv of f^enou and property; in the great closed conntriea (territoriis 
elaasis) both were assured by estates and the constitution of the law 
courts, in the othem by the imperial courts and by the oversight of the 
Empeior. The arbitrnry power of tho priuceH was thoroughly held in 
check in respect of the levying of taxes nud of their procedure against 
the person of the subject. AH these bulwarks are now removed; fifteen 
millions of Germans are given over to the caprice of thirty-six small des- 
pots, and one needs only to trace the history of the public administration 
in Bavaria, Wfirttemberg, and Westphalia to convince oneself that the rage 
for innovation, insane arrogance, unrestrained prodigality, and brutal lust 
have succeeded in destroying in every way the happiness of the unfortunate 
inhabitants of oountries ouce so prosperous.' 

As ai) example of this fury, King Frederick, in his fondness 
for the chase, turned his kingdom into a great hunting ground 
and his peasants into slaves. They were compelled to journey 

> Edinburgh Review, 29, 340-340. 

•Stein (Ompt^s III, p. 224) from Prag iu Auipist, 1813, quoted by J. R. Seeley in Life 
ftotl Times of Stein. 
*See Edinbnrg Review, 29, 352. 


as far as 80 miles from liome in order to perform forest dnty. 
Tbey were allowed to watch their crops at night against the 
ravages of the King's boars, but as they were forbidden <<to 
use offensive weapons their vigils were of little avail.'' 

What wonder that it was a time of political unrest! Mnt 
terinjil^s of discontent grew louder, until Frederick summoned 
the estates, which wore, however, dissolved before an agreement 
had been reached. Hope revived in the breasts of Wiirttem* 
bergers when King William succeeded liis father in 1817 (Feb- 
ruary), and again called the estates. After fruitless recrimi- 
nation and debate, a popular commotion in Stuttgart gave a 
pretense for closing the session. A satisfactory constitution 
was granted in 1819 (September 25), but not until a large num- 
ber of good citizens had renounced the Kingdom forever. 

A critic in the North American Review in 1820 says: 

Not a year ag:o ^ve passed throngli the Kingdom of Wfirtteiiiberg and 
along the Rhiuo, tho countries from which the great inarch of emigration 
proceeds. All £iiropo does not afford a finer and more lovely land — tho 
highest cnltivation', the finest forests, the richest prodnots, the best 
roads— everything which would seem to belong to a happy country. 
* * ' Yet it is from these delightful regions that everyone who c.iu 
walk or ride away, from children at the bi*east to women 80 years of a;;e, 
is flying as from a pestilence. * * * It is fVeedom, liberty, confidence, 
equality of rights when there is eqnality of merit which are wauteil. ' 

Turning to tho religious history, Germany seems to have 
been prolific of sects, Protestant as well as Catholic. Wiirt- 
temberg sliows a medley of schismatics. Here were found 
Brothers of tlio Free Spirit and Clerks of the Common Life, 
Sweilcnborgiaus and Moravians, Dunkers and Mennonites, 
Anabaptists and Labadists, besides the well-known denomi- 
nations. But the prevailing tendency in the established (the 
Lutheran) church was toward that form of mysticism known 
as pietism,' which may include some of the se<*>ts mentioned 

Many persons accepted the teachings of Spener and Francke, 
who preached ^^tgainst worldly dissipations and amusements 
and against the dance, the theater, card playing, to which 
others, in their blind zeal, iulded even laughing, taking a walk, 

) North American Roriew, U, 18-19. WoDtniinster Keviow, 29, 353. McCollough'i 
UnirerMl Gasettoor. it, 1079. 

* Indeed tho ohler achool of TUlilngen (Wi'irttemberg'a Univoratty) was principally 
baaed on pl^tiam. Schaff-Ucraog, III, 184. 


chewing tobacco, etc^ as inimical to oarueatness and progress 
in sanctificatiouy and therefore, sinfal." ^ 

Among the common jieople in the middle of the eighteenth 
century the meditative writings of Jacob Boehme, himself 
herder, shoemaker, and glove maker, were in high favor, as 
were also the mystically pions hymns of O^hard Teratogen, 
that *^ gentle, heaven-inspired soul, whose mind was fall of 
childlike simplicity."^ 

The orthodox charged the Pietists with holding doctrines 
opposed to those of the Lutheran Church, but the Pietists 
affirmed that their intention was only to purify the Lutheran 
faith of the errors which had insidiously permeated it. The 
extremists could not, however, remain long in clmrches where 
cold formalism ha<l usurped the place ot hearty expression. 
Thus arose the Separatists, who ^< denounced the church as 
Babel, her means of grace as impure, and her preaching as 
empty and hypocritical babbling." ^ 

Weighty questions, therefore, troubled the clergy. How 
were such bljisphemers to be treated! What amount of toler- 
ation should l>e granted to their religious meetings held in pri- 
vate houses? Ill his last doys (1749-1752), Bengel, the Abra- 
ham of Wiirttemberg Pietists, opi)08ed without avail the severe 
methods of repression favored by the Duke. Punishments 
and force, in some cases carried so far as to take persons by 
violence to church, were of course in vain,^ but a number of 
Separatists were exiled.' 

Still, in 1781, when Nicolai came to Wiirttemberg, he fonnd 
the same apocalyptical and prophetical fantasies, together with 
Pietistic asceticism.^ But there was a growing rationalistic 
spirit, which fastened upon tiie Lutheran clergy and corrupted 
the services of the chnrch.^ Innovations were made in the mode 
of worship and in the liturgy, especially in 1800, which were 
displeasing to many. The hymn book had been secularized. 
<<The oratorios and cantatas of the beer garden," wrote the 

* See Henke, Algemelne GeMbiohta der Cliristl. Kjrclio, 9, 517. Kurtz, Church His* 
tory, J I. 243. 

*Mia8 Cox, Encj-clopeilift BrlUnnica, 12, 022. 
' Kurtz, Church History, II. 270. 

* Hase, History of the Christian Chorch, 557-558. 

* KnrU. Church History, II, 270-271. 

* Frmnk, Gesohichte der Protestant. Theologie, II, 203. 

'"Before the close of the lost century an infidel, transcendontal, rationalistic move- 
ment swept through the churches and uuiTerHities and corrupted the great body of the 
Lutheran clergy." Bev. E. Pond, Congregational Kev., 1 : 340. 


indignant Hurst, ^^ were the Sabbath accompaniment of the 
sermonM. The poets of the day were publicly recited iu the 
pulpits where the Reformers had preached." ' 

As the tricentennial of Luther's labors approached, the oppo- 
sition to formal, rationalistic, intellectual religion increased, 
and numerous bodies of Separatists refused to attend the 
services or to lend their support to the state church. These 
held conventicles or meetings in private houses, led by some 
of their number who were students of the Bible and of pletistic 

The ecclesiastical powers, furious at the presumptuous icon- 
oclasm of untaught laymen, prohibited their meetings and 
attempted to break them up by force, in which they were sec- 
onded by the Oovernmeut, but, ^^as pietism did not shun mar- 
tyrdom of any kind, neither the ridicule and abuse of the 
infidel masses, nor the hatred of the rationalistic pastors, nor 
yet the interposition of the civil power were able to retard its 

In the hope of securing freedom from molestation in their 
religious pracMces, thousands of persons emigrated to southern 
Russia and to North America. Those who went to Russia 
were soon nssiinilated by the churches there, but those who 
settled in America generally retained their separate organiza- 
tion and formed the basis of numerous sects still existing. 
The great loss by emigration of substantial, moral subjects led 
at last to concession on the part of the King. A petition by 
the moderate reform party of the Lutheran Church for a sepa- 
rate constitution and freedom from oaths was gn^anted in 1817;^ 
while in 1819, together with the promulgation of the new civil 
constitution, came permission from the King to Hoffman to 
found the semicommunistic and ecclesiastically free settlement 
at Kornthal.^ 


Among the inhabitants of Wiirttemberg who fell under the 
displeasure of King Frederick and his church esUiblishment 
was that body which emigrated before the reforms of 1810, and 
which after settling at Zoar, Ohio, became known as the Society 
of Separatists.'^ 

I Quoted by Neviu in Scrlbncr's Mag., 17, 704-705. 

*Kurts, Church Uiatory, II, 300. 

'Seo Uenke's Algenieiiie Gcscliiclito tier ChriNll. Klri'lie. 0:517. 

* Hum Hist. Chriatlan Church, 558. 

• "The lerm Separa Until, however, btTaniM a party naino for the first time iu Oemian}*, 
being originally employed in the Wetterau, theu iu Wiir.temberg." McClintocic Sc 
Strong. IX, S8i. 


They were mystics — influenced by tbe writings of Boehme, 
the songs of Gerhard Terstegen — whose hymn book, the 
Blamen-Oiirtlein, is still highly prized at Zoar — and by the 
teachings of Jang-Stilling, <' charcoal burner, tailor, village 
schoolmaster, occulist, and professor of political science as 
well. as mystic." Like the Quakers, with whom they had much 
in common, they refrained from the outward observance of the 
sacraments of baptism and the Lonl's Supper. In their meet- 
ings was the greatest freedom allowed, all forms being dis- 
carded. Their leader was one of them. They doffed their 
hats to no one, holding that obeisance is due to Ood alone. 
But as Macanlay said of the old Puritans, though they stood 
erect before man, they humbled themselves in the dust before 

They believed in a gospel of peace, which would not allow 
them to render military service.* Their conscientious scruples 
forbade the taking of an oath, which at that day was rigorously 
insisted upon. Holdiug these peculiar views, they refused to 
send their children to the parochial schools, which were under 
the control of the state church and taught submission to its 

For all these reasons our Separatists were persecuted. Their 
religious gatherings were broken up. They were treated with 
indignity by their orthodox neighbors. They were whipped 
and imprisoned, men and women. Johannes Goesele^ and 
another member were kept in prison for nine years. Baumler, 
who for ten years was a teacher among them, depended for 
safety upon frequent changes of residence and living in the 
utmost privacy.^ Many were put in irons or compelled to work 
in the chain gang, of whom at least one Wiis frozen to death. 

Frequently they considered the feasibility of seeking a coun- 
try where they might unmolested practice the pure doctrines 
of primitive Christianity. Bat they were not rich. Confisca- 
tions and fines had now consumed a great part of the money or 
proi>erty they had possessed. Then, too, emigration from 
Wiirf temberg in the beginning of this century was not easy. 

I Though one of their desoendanto gave as tbe reaiioii that it was safer and more giori- 
otts to languish in prison as a martyr than to face the cannon of tbe enemy. 

*Hinea says his liberation was brought about in this way: Being brought before 
Napoleon by the King of WUrtteroborg, he ruarlossly denounced the sanguinary policy of 
Napoleon and warned him that Go<l would liold him responsible for the murder of so 
many of his fellow-oreatures. Some tinio Liter the King released Ooesele, saying, *'If 
yon had not so spoken to NaiMiietm, I would liave killed you. As yon have treated us 
lM»th alike, 3*ou are free." 

* U. S. Sop. Court, U Howanl. SH:i. 


GitizenRbip had to be reuounced and a property tax paid 
before passports coald be procured. 

Then came the great famine of 1816, when the new King 
showed a spark of hnmanity ^<by selling the menagerie of his 
royal father and distribnting to the starving i)opa]ace of Stat- 
gard a large quantity of potatoes, which had been amassc^l for 
His Majesty's kangaroos and elephants."* Nevertheless, the 
severity of the famine, continned persecntions, and the insist- 
ence of some Tx)ndon Quakers, confirmed the determination of 
the Separatists to settle in America. 

The springof 1817 fon \u\ about 300 Separatists, fh>m Wiirttem- 
berg, Bavaria, and Baden, congregated at Hamburg ready to 
sail. The master's terms were severe and those who were able 
pafd the fares of those whose lunds were insufficient.' *A 
(Government report says that emigrant ships iii t^ose days 
were ** commonly of the worst quality— old and unsea worthy, 
and tlie commanders sent in them ignorant, inexi>erieuced, 
and brutal."^ Whether it was such a boat or not in which the 
Separatists embarked, the majority of them were attacked by 
a terrible scrofulous disease and the voyage consumed ninety 
days. This time was well employed in becoming better 
acquainted with one another. Jose])h M. B^umler had been 
chosen leader of the band in the stead of Barbara Griiberman,* 
aseer of visions, who diod l»efore the migration. On shipboard, 
Baumler doctored the sick, cheered the despairing, gave reli- 
gious instruction, advised in secular matters, and by his kind 
common sense won an exalted place in the hearts of his com- 
panions, which he retained to his dying day. 

Arriving in Philadelphia in August (14), 1817, they received 
hospitable treatment at the hands of the Quakers, to whom 
they had letters from the London Friends. This benevolent 

* North American Review, 11,4. 

*I ani incUped to think that not nil the faros were paid before le«v{n|; (Semiany And that 
those honnd oat in PennsylTania were to servo oat their fares, a« M. de Fiirttenwfiriher 
reported in 1817 was onstoniary. " Those who are unable to pay in Amsterdam and are 
to pay in America are charged, every man or woman, 190 florins or $76, and ander 14 and 
over 4 years half that som. Every one thus contracting to pay his passage In America 
is bound to do it within ten days after his arrival. In case of death, if it happen when 
the voyage is more than half made, th^ surviving friends are holden to pay the passage 
of the deceased ; if befbre the passage be half made, no passage money is to be paid. 

"The provisions are dealt out on the principle of fall portion to those who pay fall 
fare ; half portions to the half-fares, and children nothing." Upon the arrival of the ves- 
sels at Philadelphia, mechanics or farmers pay the fare and the immigrant is bound to 
him by contract for a number of years. (See North American Rev., 11, 4-5.) 

■ North American Rev., 11, 8. 

* Hinds American Communities, 35. 


people ibund homes for the sick aud employment for the able- 
bodied immigrants. The Quakers also aided the Separatists 
in their negotiations with Godfrey Haga, a merchant of Phila- 
delphia, who sold to them ^Hhree certain tracts or pieces of 
land [containing about 5,500 acres], situate in the State of 
Ohio," being parts of '^the tenth township in the first and 
second ranges of the tract appropriated for satisfying war- 
rants for military services."^ Part of this had been granted 
by President Adams to Haga direct and part had been granted 
by President Je£ferson to Dayton, who transferred it to Haga. 
The deed is dated May 7, 1318, and the consideration is 
1 15,000, guaranteed by a deed of trust, which .acknowledges 
three obligations of $10,000, each conditioned for the payment 
of $5,000 ^< lawful silver money of the Unitecl States," one on 
October 25, 1828, the second in 1829, and the third in 1830, 
each one bearing interest from October 25, 1821.' These writ- 
ings are signed by J. Michael Biiumler, to whom the deed was 
made, because Haga was unwilling to complicate matters by 
dealing with a number of individuals. It will be noticed that 
the first payment was not to be made until ten years after the 
deed was given, and no interest was asked for three years. 

Under a contract, Baumler and some of the stoutest men 
had, during the previous autumn, come to the forest-covered 
hills of Tuscarawas County, about 84 miles south of Cleve- 
land, Ohio, where the first log hut was built December 1, 1817, 
and a town laid out. Zoar,^ the city to which Lot fled at the 
destruction of the cities of the plain, furnished them a name 
for the little town which was to be to them a refuge from the 
evils of the world and from the persecution of the devil's 

Expecting hardships, they endured them when they came. 
Snow was 3 feet deep in March and April. Floods^ followed, 
and but little work could be done. Spring brought the remain- 
der of the colonists, to whom tlie Quakers had given $18 apiece 
for traveling expenses. A few, indeed, bound out to service 
in Pennsylvania, remained there. The pioneers began to trans- 
form the wilderness. Sod houses and log cabins were erected. 
Forest land was cleared, swamps drained, crops planted and 

* See I>eed ReooitU TuscarawaM Coooty, 3, 63. 
>Ibid..3. 64. 
«6«DMiaxiz. 20-23. 

«8ev«)rellooda occurred in 1847, 1865, aDd 1883. The laat week In March. 1898, wftter 
dood 4| feet deep on the fiilUng>mill floor. 


cared for. Only the necessaries of life were consamed. Men 
and women alike inured to ardnoas labor exerted themselves 
to the utmost, as the laud was to be divided among them in 
proportion to the amount of labor performed by ^M^h. 

The Zoarites came to this country with no communistic no- 
tions. Such were suggested by conditions. With their clumsy 
implements and no division of labor, progress at best was slow. 
Indeed, the many aged and sick were totally unable to provide 
for themselves. This fact furnished a specious argument for a 
communistic ^ society, which was now advocated by a few mem- 
bers jealous of Baumler and by certain lazy ones <^who saw 
that, as soon as the religious scruples exerted less influence, 
they would be neglected and fare badly.''' Although Baum- 
ler — not in his own interest principally, but for the ultimate 
benefit of the colonists, as he thought— opposed the community 
of goods, he called in for the discussion of the scheme all who 
had been bound out in Pennsylvania or in the vicinity of Zoar. 
The plea that there was no distinction between them in reli- 
gion, so there should be none in rank or fortune, won the more 
substantial members for communism of property, except a few 
who bought land in the neighborhood. 

Baumler assented to this compact. ' How could he be after- 
wards charged with intending to further his own financial ends 
by retaining the title to the Zoar lands in his own name! Was 
not all his property turned over to the community by this actf 


The articles,^ being duly drawn up, were signed April 15, 
1819, by 53 males and 104 females. By them the Separatists 
simply '^ united themselves according to the Apostolic sense^ 
through commursion of proi>erty," transferred their property to 
the directors, promised faithful obedience to them, agreed to 
settle disputes by arbitration, and to make no claim upon the 
society in case they should abandon it. The first directors 
were John Brymaier, John George Ackermann, and August 

■ Though I uae the terms "comroaniiitic" and **oonimuiiiei]i" in rererring to a society 
founded so early in the century, the word was oined (see Murray's Dictionary of Histori- 
cal Principles, II, 701) by Goodwyn Barroby, who aays: "I also conversed [in 1840] with 
some of the most advanced minds of the French metropolis, and there, in the presence of 
some disciples of Babcenf, then called Equalitarians, I first pronounced the name of com- 
munism, which has since * * * acquired that world>wide reputation.*' 

•Nugitna, Vol. I,No.2. 

*Seo Appendix I. 


How many children there were in the company at the time 
18 not known. Several had been born daring the year, of 
whom Christina Peterman ' was the first. Now, however, 
owing to the burden imposed by the aged and infirm, and dis- 
covering that population tended to increase faster than the 
means of subsistence — which people, somehow or other, often 
learn without the aid of Malthas — they agreed that marriages 
should not be contracted and that husbands should live apart 
from their wives until the payment of the debt was assured.' 

The articles of 1819 ^ were greatly changed in 1824, when 
they were signed by about QO males and 100 females and 
attested by the trustees and by Baumler as arbitrator. From 
the preamble it may be seen that the motive for association 
ill this case wtis religions and social rather than economical. 
Thns it says: 

In the fiilflllment of the' diitioH of Christianity and to plant, establish^ 
and conflrm the spirit of ]ovo ns the band of peace and nnion, as n safe 
foundation of social order, [we] do seek and desire, out of pure Cliristian 
loYO and persnasiou, to uuite our several personal interests iuto one com- 
mon interest. 

The articles are long, verbose, tautological, and unneces- 
sarily burdened with details of management. The first article 
renounces any separate right in property ^^ forever and conse- 
quently after the death of such members.'' This agreement 
provided for three trustees and a board of arbitration, or court 
of appeals, to be comi)osed of from one to three members. 
The directors are given ample power. By articles 4 and 5 
the members promise to labor faithfully and to ])lace minor 
children under the supervision of the directors, who may even 
bind them outside of the society by a majority vote of the 
members. All inheritances are declared to belong to the 
society. Other articles arrange for the settlement of disjiutes, 
the election of a cashier, the qualifications of members, and 
the treatment of excommunicated members. 

In 1832 (February G) The Society of Separatists of Zoar was 
incorporated^ by the general assembly,- and the next year 
(May 14, 1833) a new constitution'^ was adopted. These ar 
tioles, with the others, are given in full in appendices, and the 
last set will be referred to later. 

* Sbe WM born Jalj 24, 1818, in a rough log cabin, and died February 4, 1886. 

* A. Bierbower, in Lippincott's Magadne 20:507. eaye, **At first they prohibitnl mnr 
rlage, and had their women in common, like the Perfectionists," wbioh is not correct. 

*See Appendix II. 

«OhSoLaws30:fi2. Se49 Appendix V. 
*See Appendix III. 


The coiiimunity of goods, while not immediately saccessful, 
wiiH more so than the preceding attempt. A head race, led 
from the Tuscarawas River, furnished power for a gristmill, 
which was erected in 1821J It had a double set of stones and 
soon became popular with surrounding farmers and profitable 
to the society. The Ohio Canal, connecting Lake Erie and the 
Ohio River, was built between 1825 and 1833. The Separatists 
received $21,000' on a contract to dig the canal, 40 feet in 
minimum brendth at the water line and 20 feet on the bottom, 
through the whole length of their lands.^ They also sold food 
and supplies to other contractors. Thus they paid off the 
debt on their laud. 

In 1830 they built their woolen factory. This furnished them 
with cloth for themselves and to sell. With such present suc- 
cess and such bright prospects for the future, marriage was 
resumed, Biiumler himself taking a wife, although the children 
were kept in a public nursery from the age of 3 years until 
their majority, unless the directors saw fit to indenture them. 

That series of sermons, which were afterwards published in 
The True Separation, or the Second Birth,^ were delivered by 
Biiumler during the thirties in the old log church, with its low 
ceilings and small windows, to a simple religious folk held 
together by the scripture teacliing that the strong ought to 
bear the burdens ot the weak. During this decade (1831-1841), 
too many settlors from Germany established themselves in 
Zoar, and the conununity reached its highest membership, 
which was never TiOO men, women, and children.^ This is more 
remarkable because the settlement was ravaged by the cholera, 
which broke out in 1832, owing to the kind-hearted sinix)licity 
of this honest jieople. They had buried a stranger who had 
died on a canal boat near Zoar. Not long after a woman, 
claiming to be the wife of the dead man, appeared and 
demanded the money which heha<l had in his ^lossession when 
taken from the boat. She was told that his clothing and 
belongings had not been disturbeil. Having received i)ermis- 

' "A bricklft.V(>r, who In attached to tho company, iiiMle (bo drawlsga for it from a mill 
at n coDSidorablo distaQco, and bail doAigued and executed tbe wbole of the arraogt^monta 
witb ao much ikill that the wbole procoHs retiuirca the cure of but one man and a boy. 
To it are Attached two carding maobinea and a large Miwiug mill." Penny MagAxine, vol. 
6, p. 411, 1837. 

*Tbe canal waa built in aectiona of one-bulf mile ur a mile. Ninety per cent of tbe 
value of the work done wmh paid to the contractoni R8 tho work proceeded. 

*Home any tbnt women aH well as men dug and carric<l out earth on their backa. 

<See iiibliography. Die Wahro Sepiiratiou odor diu Wiedergeburl, u. a. w. 

*lIindH* American Communitiea, 20. 


sion, she bired an outsider for $100 and opened the grave. 
Three hundred dollars in notes and coin were found. The 
woman offered money to the society for their trouble, but they 
refused it. She went away. That night the cholera broke 
out in Zoar. The woman and the hired man both died of the 
disease not far from the town. Of the communists, about one- 
third were claimed by the cholera.' 

The people around the settlement, mistaking Baumler's 
name, pronounced it Bimeler, and the Separatists came to be 
known as Bimmelers. Some time before 1824 the leader him- 
self began to use the anglicized spelling of his name in legal 
documents. Of these there were quite a few. Although the 
constitution declare<l that ^' all deeds, mortgages, and similar 
instruments of writing shall be executed in the name of the 
trustees," they were nevertheless executed in Bimeler's name. 
Before his death in 1853 he had bought for the society about 
2,100 acres of land. Besides, he had bought from Christmas, 
Hazlett, and Hogg the iron furnaces, flasks, patterns, tools, 
teams, etc, together with extensive ore and coal lands in Fair- 
field Township. Perhaps the Separatists had operated this 
furnace irom 1831, but the deed was not given until 1835 (July 
22).' Of the purchase price, $20,000, one payment of $4,250 
was made by a transfer of Massilon Bank stock, showing the 
saving of theZoarites; while for two other payments, in all 
$4,560, judgments were secured by the Farmer's Bank of Can- 
ton, with costs in each case ot $8.09^.^ Not until 1845 was the 
final payment made.^ Mean while the Separatists built another 
furnace along the canal between Zoar and Bolivar. Ore, coal, 
limestone, and timber were found on the land, but, even with 
the advantage of proximity to raw materials and to means of 
transportation, the furnaces were never successful financially. 
The country about the Zoar lands was developed and settled, 
and employment was given to many Bavarians, Frenchmen, 
and Hessians, for the work was almost entirely done by hired 

There are several records of Zoar from 1835 to 1840.^ The 
community operated a sawmill, one flour mill and had one build- 
ing, two furnaces, a tanyard, an oil mill, a woolen and linen 

iHJeheoer, Annala of Tiuoarawas Count j, 326-327. 
"Deed records, Ta«canwAs County, 11* 152. 
*L*w recoida, TnBcarawM County, 5, 600-502. 
«Sm dneA record, Tuscarawas County, 41, 415-417. 

■Penny Magasine, 1887, vol. 6, 411; Howe's Historical Collections of Ohio, m, 387 ff.t 
Jsnkins's Ohio Gazetteer, 1887, 491-482, under Zoar. 

HIST 98—12 


manufactory, lime and brick kilns, and a brewery, which sup- 
plied the members as well as the two taverns belonging to the 
society. Tliebakery, laundry, and nursery were common. The 
town tavern was built in 1833. The large, pillared, and i>or- 
ticoed brick house, called the "King's Palace,"* was erected for 
Bimeler in 1837, but it has always been used in part as a store- 
house from which to distribute goods to members uxK>n the 
order of the trustees. Four thousand barrels of flour and 6,000 
pounds of butter were exported annually. Their property, 
valued at half a miUion, consisted in part of 9,000 acres of 
land, 1,000 cleared, with improvements, the stock on the 
domain, and money invested in stocks. The |K>pulation was 
about 200.2 ^jj indication of the community's prosperity^ is 
found in the amendment of 1846 to the act of incorporation, 
which allowed the society ** to receive a clear annual income of 
any sum not exceeding $10,0(^0,"* while the act allowed but 
one thousand. 

But even in the midst of success, perhaps because of it, 
arose dissension and a determined desire for the division of 
the property, which culminated in a suit for partition of the 
estate, brought by seven members* against Bimeler. Appeal 
brought the case to the State supreme court, the United States 
district court,^ and finally, in 1852, to the Supreme Court "^ of 
the United States, which decided in favor of the society, sus- 
taining the validity of the articles of agreement, and holding 
that the association was not a corporation in i>erpetuity 
because it could be dissolved at any time by a vote of the 

Charges had been made that Bimeler acted dishonestly in 
having the property in his own name. Depositions by persons 
who had been expelled or who had left the society ** represent 
his conduct as tyrannical and oppressive to the members of 

> The Zoarites object to people calling Bimeler their king. They say they never hud a 
king, which i» true; hot Bimeler had autocratic power and dictated even to the trustees, 
though he did so with reason, which is not so far from the status of a good king after all. 

«In 1840, 201. 

> In the United States Supreme Court decision in 1852, it is said " Zoar surpasses prob- 
ably all other neighborhoods in the State in neatness and productiveness of its agricul- 
ture, in the mechanic arts, and in manufacturing by machinery'.'' " Moat respectable men 
living near the .village say that property in the vicinity has advance<l 10 per cent by the 
enterprise and industry of this people,*' 14 Howard, p. 364. 

«Ohio Laws. 44, 1&5. See Appendix VI. 

*G. G. Bohringer, Geo. Jans, Margaret Brymier, Conrad Brymier, Johannes Goessele, 
Matthew Heilmau, and Malinda Heilman. 
•5 McLean, 223. 
'14HowartI, 589. 


the association/ aud as controlliug its actions absolutely. 
Several instances are given to impeach bis moral chai*acter 
and bis integrity.^ '^ The court, however, declared that Binie- 
ler's conduct in holding the property in trust '< was not only 
not fraudulent, but above reproach ;" and that part of the wit- 
nesses had done '^ great injustice to the character of Biuieler,^ 
who was ^* a man of great energy and of high capacity for 

This assured the stability of the foundations of the society, 
but within a year from this vindication of his character by the 
highest tribunal of the land, in the midst of the people whom 
he bad raised from poverty to wealth, Bimeler died. 


Bimeler's death occurred August 27, 1853.^ He had been 
the leader of the Separatists for forty years. He was their 
teacher in Germany; in this country he was their friend, 
advisor, protector, the arbitrator of their disputes, their agent 
in business affairs with the outside world — their entrepreneur. 
The community was organized against his wish, for he had 
expected to help his people pay for their land and then to win 
for himself a name and a place in his ado[>ted country. 
Through all his life he seems to have had a doubt as to the 
continuance of the common ownership, for in his will he under- 
scored ^'to its assigns;" but when the communfty of goods 
was decided upon he determined that it should succeed. The 
same spirit of humanity prevented him from abandoning the 
furnaces when so many, though outsiders, were dependent 
upon them, and they were oi>erated for several years at a loss. 
Notwithstanding a few unprofitable ventures, the varied busi- 
ness undertakings were generally successful under his man- 
agement. Not only the accumulation of wealth during his 
lifetime but also the husbanding of it since his death must be 
credited principally to his influence, for he insisted upon haid 
work and strict sowing, which are the right and left hands of 
economic production, and upon a frugality almost miserly. 
There are old members who do not hesitate to express the 
opinion that if Bimeler had lived twenty years more the 

' For liko cbargM against Ilapp of Harmony see Scribner's Mag., 17. 703-705. 
*lt was said he drove a splendid carriage and liorseH. Evidence vras given to prove it 
an ordinary carriage, and that one of the horses was worth $20, the other perhaps $40. 
>U Howard. 580. 
*He was 75 years of age. 


commanity would have been more prosperous and more per- 
manently so. 

Bat that which gave this many-sided man his almost auto- 
cratic power over these simple-hearted German folk was his 
religious knowledge and his spiritual leadership. Like Paul, 
he had his thorn in the liesb, being lame and having one eye 
larger than the other,^ but outsiders who have heard him say 
he grew quite eloquent in his discourses and held the rapt 
attention of his congregations. He was not above blending 
the earthly and the heavenly in the Sunday morning services, 
for, just before dismissal, he outlined the work for the follow- 
ing week and gave some really pastoral advice. The new 
brick church which was building when he die<l was completed, 
but no preacher has ever stood in its pulpit. Bimeler's own 
discourses have been read there each Sunday, enjoying greater 
privileges and wielding more power in the lives of the few who 
attend the meetings than does the Bible. It mast be admitted 
that the younger generation at Zoar does not possess for the 
man or for his teStchings the same reverence as is shown by 
those who knew him personally. 

Jacobi in 1858 wrote for the Social Eecord : 

Bimeler was tho main engine; he had to do all the thinking, preach- 
ing, and pulling the rest along. While he had strength all \vent on seem- 
ingly very well* but as his strength began to fail the whole concern went 
on slowly. I arrived the week after his death. The members looked like 
a flock of sbeep who had lost their shepherd. Bimeler appointed a well- 
meaning man as his successor, but as he was not Bimeler he could not put 
his engine before the train.^ 

Ten days before his death, August 10, 1853, Bimeler made a 
will by which he bequeathed all his '< property, real, personal, 
and mixed of whatever kind, be the same in lands, tenements, 
trusts, or other evidences of debts of whatever nature, to the 
Society of Separatists of Zoar and its assigns forever."^ The 
trustees were made executors, and their bond in the sum of 
$40,000 was signed * by 22 male and 12 female members of the 

1 There is a story— probably originating in a Joke— that his persecators in Germany 
hanged him one night until his eye bulged out, but cut him down before he was dead. 

•Noyes's History of American Socialisms, 136. 

'And continues— "Hereby declaring that all the property lover held, real and personal, 
within tho Connty of Tuscarawas, has been the property of the said society and was held 
by me in trust for the said society, to which I now return it." Even with this some of 
the Separatists were not satisfied that the deed to the furnace lands was valid, so Decem- 
ber 2, 1858, the deed was confirmed to the society. (Deed Kec. Tuscarawas County, 40: 

4 See Becord of Wills Tuscarawas County, 3: 187. 


The remaining history of the community can be briefly told. 
The beginning of its decline was near^ which was to be followed 
by stagnation, and after a temporary revival by dissolution. 
Changes were gradually made in the resources of the com- 
munity. The north furnace was abandoned ; the south furnace, 
with 424 acres of land, was sold' for tl6,000, some time before 
1860. The old gristmill was rebuilt and later furnished with 
roller machinery. It still makes a superior brand of flour. 
Tile and brickmaking ceased. The tanyard, oil mill, and one 
tavern fell into disuse. The second gristmill, of immense size 
and excellent workmanship, fitted with the best appliances 
known at the time, had proved unprofitable from the first. 
Snrrotinding towns outstripped Zoar. Its business was crip- 
pled, until it became commercially no more important than any 
little country village. 

The office of agent- general, whose duty had been tojconduct 
all business with outsiders, had lapsed at Bimeler's death. 
Neither the directors nor the standing committee would obey 
any future leader. Jacob Sylvan, the successor of Bimeler, 
was a poor reader, and allowed Weebel to read the Sunday dis- 
courses for him. Weebel succeeded Sylvan in 1862 and was 
himself followed by Ackerman. Simon Beuter is now the 
spiritual head of a rather unspiritual body. 

The Civil War tested the conviction of the community in 
respect of war and showed a clear line of cleavage. The older 
members, consistent with the principles and early belief of 
the Separatists, expressed their convictions against military 
service; but the younger ones enthusiastically offered to go 
as soldiers. Advice could not restrain them; force was not 
attempted. Fourteen members and several hired hands served 
in the Union Army. 

Following years crept monotonously by, with but little to 
enliven the occupations of seedtime and harvest. All goods 
had been shipped by canal or hauled to the railroad at Zoar 
Station, 3 miles from Zoar, until 1882, when the Wheeling and 
Lake Erie Railway was put through to the town, the right of 
way through the community's land being given in considera- 
tion of a pass to adult members of the society. Two years 
later, June 3, 1884, the village of Zoar, containing 300 inhabit- 
ants, was incorporated by the county commissioners upon the 
petition of 56 male members. 

>Deed Itoconl, Taaoarawas County, 40, 46. 


Zoar iu late years became popular as a snminer resort, 
especially so siuce to tbe old hotel has been added a new wing, 
fitted ap in good taste ^^ with all modern appliances,'' as the 
advertisements say. Here in the summer come many visitors 
to enjoy the restfnl quiet of the place, and a school of artists, 
who find in the picturesque houses, the quaint people and the 
varied beauty of the silrroundings, interesting subjects for their 
brashes and their brains 

But, before proceeding to the story of the last days of Zoar, 
let us get a better idea of (1) the sociological aspect of the 
place, (2) the government and religious belief of the com- 
munity and, (3) the economic and industrial conditions. 


The lands of the Separatists in Tuscarawas County, Ohio, 
are situated in the highest i)ortion of the state, ^ on a ridge 
which extends from northeast to southwest. This hilly coun- 
try, covered with forests, but of indifferent soil except in the 
river bottoms, must have in some degree reminded the first 
settlers of old Wiirttemberg and especially of the Black Forest. 
The resources of tbe lands for communistic purx)oses were 
excellent.' Elm, oak, beech, chestnut, walnut, maple, and 
other trees stood ready to hand for cabins, barns, bridges^ 
furniture and other domestic conveniences. Limestone and 
sandstone of fine quality for building abounded The surface 
concealed at least four strata of iron, six layers of fire clay, 
and six beds of coal of the Sandy Creek coal region,^ with this 
advantage, that the richest deposits lie near the surface 
Through the tract flowed the Tuscarawas River with sufficient 
fall and body of water to furnish iK)wer for all needed industries. 

But as the Wiirttemberg of their day was an '< agricultural 
and bucolic country," they were more disposed to the culti- 
vation of the soil and to undertakings connected with it 
or dependent upon it. Land was cleared, the bottom land 
drained, orchards and vines were planted. Soon cattle of 
good breed were introduced. The need of a gristmill became 
evident. All of the ordinary trades were represented among 

I Zoar Station, 3]4 feet, top of hillH at Zoar Station 600 feet above lake Erie. 

* For a geologic section nt Zoar Station, aoo Geology of Ohio, Vol. Ill, p. 81. 

* 2Some of tbe black band iron ore yielded 70 per cent. ** On the west bank of the river, 
opposite Zoar, tbe hills contain coal Nos. 5 and 6, both of about the i«aine thickness, 
three and one- half to four feet." At one place No. 5 was " foldetl upon itself and thick- 
ened to 13 feet." These Heauis were worked for the community for a long time by Mr. 
Joseph Medill. (See Geology of Oliio, III, S5 and 81 ; also Chap. LVI.) 



the original settlers, who begau at once to make provision for 
the meager wants of the German peasantry of their day. 
Simple log huts, some chinked with mud, some sided with clap- 
boards, formed the dwellings. The roofs were of thatch or 
of rough shingles and some of red tile, which may yet be seen 
on many of the immense old barns perched in many parts of 
the town. 

This town did not evolve according to the usual rule. There 
was no gradual concentration of surrounding inhabitants for 
purposes of trade, but the site of Zoar was chosen in the 
midst of a wilderness remote, from other settlements in the 
sparsely populated State; the streets were laid out and build- 
ings erected for the accommodation of the entire colony 

For the first year those rude habitations, with their rough 
furniture and scanty comforts, ' may have formed ''homes" 
for the hard-worked people, but that name must be denied the 
houses for the next ten years at least, during which family life 
was entirely wanting; all natural ties were broken and arti- 
ficial families formed. This separation of man and wife was 
more easily effected because of the religious beliefs of the Sep- 
aratists and their expressed opinion as to continence. They 
held as a religious doctrine that Adam lost the image of God 
by desiring a wife, and Bimeler taught that God simply toler- 
ated but did not look with favor on marriage; <ilso, that in 
heaven the nearest relatives even would not know each other. 
Some of these unnatural families had all males; some, all 
females; and others had both. Some were presided over by a 
man; some, by a woman.^ Each household formed a unit in 


J. M. Bimeler 

Stoplicn Hoover . . . 

JoADua Uoek 

ChristUii Platx 

Goorge Goesacle 

Barbani Shock 


Mngdalena Aiick . . . 

John Breymler 

Mar|;an«t Ackerman 


Ffiinale. i 


4 i' 

















Cujtper Fetter 

Jacob Shearing 

John Miller 

Dorothea Diets 

Maria Kaehule 

Jacob Kimmerly 

Christian Mit^'lierly 
Geo. Groetiiug«^r..r. 
Frederick Klots ... 
Godfrey Lents 




the distribution of supplies, the preparation of food, and the 
care of the vegetable gardens. Now " for years," as Macdon- 
ald says,^^their town presented the anomaly of a village with- 

I The familiea a*, one time were oontititut«d thus (see Mltchener's Aunals of Tuscarawas 
Ooonty. 324, 325). 


out a single child to be seen or heard within its limits."^ 
Daring all this time no instance of incontinence is known. 

Aboat 1830 marriage was resumed, bat. with the agreement 
that all children after the age of 3 years should be kept until 
their majority in a public nursery, which was more fully pro- 
vided for in the constitution of 1833.^ The Educational Insti- 
tute was to be the name of this school for moral, intellectual, 
and manual training. At its head were placed overseers — 
male or female—under the supervision of the standing com- 
mittee. This orphan asylam lost its patronage, and the 
machine method of laising children fell into desuetude in 
1845, when Ackerman refused to send his child there.^ 

Then Familyism again triumphed over communism. It is the 
old conflict which has had to be waged by every community. 
The old religious orders were celibate, if we except the Carpo- 
cratians^ and a few other minor sects who had their wives in 
common.^ The Shakers always practiced celibacy, because 
they believed in the dual sex of every perfect Christian, " Bapp 
of Harmony embargoed good marriage." Some of tbe Fourier 
societies split up on this qaestion. Bazard and Enfantin, dis- 
ciples of St. Simon, separated in their communistic experiment 
because the latter desired to substitute "free love'' for the 
tyranny of marriage.® Noyea, of Oneida, introduced his polyg- 
ynpus and polyaudrous system of complex marriage,"^ which led 
to the suppression of the society because of the threats of 
wrathful neighbors.^ The Icarians favored marriage, and, after 
many difficulties, were scattered. The only strong community 
favoring marriage is the Amana Society of Inspirationists, in 

On the whole, love for the community wanes as love for the 
family waxes strong.^ But as celibacy, like the community of 

1 Noyea'a History of American Socialisms, 140. 

>See Appendix III. * 

» Nagitna, Vol. I, No. 3. 

« See Oilman's Church History, II, 83-84. 

* See T. D. Woolsey's Commauism and Socialism, pp. 42-50, on Anabaptists of Mfinster. 

' See Koyes's American Socialisms, 630-631, and An Experiment in Human Stirpicnltore 
(Mrs. McGee), Am. Anthropologist, Octoberf 1891. 

* See Ely's Labor Movement in America, 17-19. Koyes, in 1879, proposed to the Oneida 
commnnity *' That we give up the piactice of complex marriage, not as renouncing belief 
in the principles and prospective finality of that institution, but in deference to public 
sentiment, which is evidently rising against it." (Woolsey's Communism and Socialism, 
p. 73.) In 1881 Oneida became a Joint stock company. 

* *' How comes it that monks are so fond of their orderf It is owiujs; to the very caose 
that renders the order insupportable to themselves. Their rule debars them of all things 
by which the ordinary passions are fed. There remains, therefore, only this passion for 
the very mle which torments them. The more aiiHtero it in— that is, the more it curbs 
their inclinations, the more force it gives to the only ]>nHaion it leaves them." (Montes- 
quieu, L'Esprit des Lois, v : 2.) 


[roods itself, was undertaken ac Zoar only from supposed 
necessity, the later growth of family interests was no cause for 
despcdr. At present there is nothing uncommon about family 
life at Zoar, and though Noyes alleges that there are love 
affairs in all communities,* Zoar seems to have always been 
particularly free from them. There have been one or two ille- 
gitimate children born there. No child has been born deformed, 
and but one idiotic What town of like size can make as 
clean a showing for eighty years t The correct morals of the 
people is shown by the fact that not one of the Separatists has 
ever been convicted on a criminal charge.' 

The houses of to-day are more comfortable than in an early 
day, but are devoid of luxuries, except those gotten snrrep- 
titioualy — that is, without an order from the trustees. The 
buildings are log, frame, or brick, usually two stories high, 
unpaiuted, but with vine-covered lattice work along the sides, 
which in autumn hangs full of many varieties of grapes. The 
food of the people is substantial.^ Each family has a vegeta- 
ble garden and each may keep chickens and ducks. Pork 
formerly forbidden is still in disfavor/ Three meals a day^ 
with ^^10 o'clock piece" in summer, is the rule. The one-time 
regulation dress of the community has given place to varied 
attire. Fashion sheets are studied and milliners' hats worn 
by the younger ladies, probably with the same ulterior purpose 
as their outside sisters have. The men, as a rule, wear home- 
spun clothes of good quality. 

Bimeler was the first physician of the Separatists and prac- 
ticed homeopathy, to which the community has been devoted 
ever since. The present doctor — a big, red faced, farmer-like 
man — surrounded in his office by terror* inspiring sirups for 
neighboring farmers, and vials of diminutive pills for commn- 
nists,.told mo that malaria has almost disapjieared and that 
colds, developing grip and <' consumption of the throat,"' are 
most prevalent. A board of health is not needed. The streets, 
running at right angles and each square inclosing 3 acres, 
have no artificial sidewalks but are very clean. Pure water 
from a spring on the hillside is led into town and supplied to 

> NojM*t History of Americau Socialisms, 658. 

* That is, members in good standiDg. Perhaps some ought to have been convicted. It 
wonid not be surprising, for inntance, if it were proven that liquor was sold on Sunday 

*No foreign or tropical fruit is used. Spices, salt, coffee, tea, and a few such articles. 
must, of course, be imported. 

* Hogs are fattened for lard and for market. When 1 was there they had 84. 


each family and to wateriDg troughs, the waste overflowing 
into the open gutters — the sewers of the town. 

Four persons died iu Zoar last year and four were born. In 
1830 the population was 173, of whom 106 were females, and 
35 were under 21. All were members of the community or 
their children. The population increased to 32G in 1870 and 
was the same in 1890. A great many applications for mem- 
bership have been rejected every year. There are now 136 
members, the majority of whom are women — a condition which 
has always existed. One hundred and twenty-five belong to 
the second class and 11 to the first. Besides, there are now 
123 children of school age, and 45 hired helpeis, some of whom 
have wives. 

The children go to public school until they are 17 years of 
age,* when they are put to work. The two schoolrooms are 
well furnished with patent desks, apparatus, and organ. Only 
the common branches are taught. In the primary grade 
three days are given to English and two to Oerraan, which is 
the common language of the people. This use of dual speech 
may make the children appear backward in their studies. 
Until 1874 only German was taught in the school. No one in 
the community has ever taken a higher course, except the 
present school-teacher, who attended a local normal school in 
a neighboring town, but even he never withdrew the winding 
sheet from the dead languages. 

Books are rare; weekly newspapers are widely read. Now, 
according to Hinds, <^ Experience shows that a community 
thrives best when some check is placed upon the intercourse 
of its members with the outside world." ^ The Ilarmouists 
were not allowed to learn English nor to walk outside the 
lands of the society.^ Zoar has always been popular with its 
neighbors. The country people came in on Sundays to enjoy 
the novel conditions and have all the fun they could. Some- 
times they precipitated disturbances. A grove was set apart 
for the use of picnic parties. Tramps showed their apprecia- 
tion of the warm room and free lunch luruished them by call- 
ing*again. The visitors at the summer hotel, by fiashy dress, 
free use of money, and marvelous tales of another world, 

> When public Hchool voji flrat openeU ilio ngo limit wna 15; they afterwardB ralaed it to 
16, and later to 17. 
■Hinds's Amftrioan Conimonllies, 37. 
*See Scribner'H Magazine, 17, 705. 



anintentionally aroased discontent in the yoanger generation 
of Zoarites. 

Tiie inspiringly beaatifal scenery furnishes the chief satis- 
faction to the (esthetic sense to be found at Zoar. A few 
flowers or a canary are seen in some liouses. Good pictures 
are wanting — perhaps large photographs of Bocky Mountain 
sc'enes, given to the hotel by a brewer — ex -Separatist and ex- 
mayor of Cleveland — are the best. 

Bimeler^s garden, with its central evergreen tree surrounded 
by a hedge of spruce trees, approached by 12 walks, pictori- 
ally represents the restored Eden — the New Jerusalem — to 
which paths lead from every direction, while around the out- 
side runs a path in which the worldly-minded, who will not 
choose the right way, eternally wander. The flower beds be- 
tween the walks show old-fashioned garden favorites. There 
is a small conservatory in the garden, and the utilitarian spirit 
is evidenced by beds of berry bushes and arbors for grai)e- 

Although Zoar has had an orchestra and a band, music is 
not encouraged. A pipe organ about G feet square is used in 
church. In order that they may practice at their homes for 
the Sunday music, two young men have been supplied, one 
with an organ, the other with a piano. Sometimes a singing 
school has been maintained. 

Parties, festivals, and entertainments are infrequent. The 
barroom and store are places for social intercourse. ^'Sewing 
bees," haymaking, harvesting, and husking bring the members 
together in social as well as industrial relation. Lack of cere- 
mony may be noticed in their greetings; in their weddings, 
which are simple contracts between the parties, of late nfflrmed 
before a justice of the peace; or in their funerals, which are a 
simple burying on the third day, although a memorial service 
is held the next Sunday at charch. The graveyard, upon the 
hill above the brewery, is fairly well kept, but many graves are 
not marked, among them Bimeler's, on which a great tree 
grows. However, before his death he requested, I understand, 
that no monument be erected over his remains. 


As the government of the Zoarites rested entirely on a basis 
of religious convictions, a clearer under8tan(ling of the reli- 
gions foundations will enable us to better appreciate the pro- 
visions of their civil constitution and communistic covenants. 


Wbtle tbe Separatists were still in Germaiiy they adopted a 
coiifessioD of faitli, which was afterwards pnblislied iu Bitne- 
let's Discourses (Vol. I). I give it in fall : 

I. We believe and confess the Trinity of God: Fatlier, Son, and Holy 

II. The fall of Adam and of all mankind, witti the loaa thereby of the 
likenoNB of God in tbem. 

III. Tlio return through Chriat to God, oar proper Father. 

IV. The Holy ScTiptima, as the measure and guide of oar lives anri the 
totirbstone of trulh apd falsehood. 

V. All ceremouioH are banished from among us, and wa declare them 
aseless and injurious, and this is the chief oanse of oar separation. 

VI. We render tu do mortal honors due onl j to Ood, as to uncover the 
head or bend the knee. We address everyone ns " thon," du. 

VII. We separnte ouDielves from ivll eoulesiostloal connections and con- 
Slitutiuns, becanae trno Chriittlaii life requires no Bectarianism, while set 
Tonus and ceremonies cause sectnrlau divisions. 

VIII. Our marriages are contracted by mutual eonuDt and before wit- 
nesses. They are then notiaed to tbe political authority; and we reject 
all intervention of priests or preachers. 

IX. All iutercourse of the sexes, except what is necessary to the perpet- 
QBtion of the species, wo hold to be sinful and contrary tu the order and 
command of God. Complete virginity or complete cessation of sexoal 
commerce is more commenilable than marriajte. 

X. We can not send our children into the schools of Babylon [meaning 
the clerlo&l schools of Gemiany] where other principles contrary to tbeee 
are taught. 

XI. We can not serve the State as soldiers became a Chriition ean not 
murder his enemy, much loss his friend. 

XII. We re^urd the political government aa nhaolately necmaary to 
maintain order and to protect the good and honeet and to pnniah tbe 
wrongdoers; and nu one can prove us to be untrue to the constitnted 

By this last article, tliey declared their an wlllitigness to being 
classed as rebels against the government of even tbe King of 
Wiirtemberg, though they coald not acknowledge him as lord 
of their consciences. These principles are still the basis of 
belief of the Separatists so far as they have any belief in 
spiritual things. Tbe old members are faithful to the ancient 
teachings, but tbe younger portion of the community seem for 
the most part infidel and materia 
XI, concerning service in the ar 
opposed by the young men duri 
relating to clericiil schools hitH 
this country. As public schools 
(toctrine, it is presumed they wo 
able to Se|)aratJBts, and now tit Z 
is no member of the cuimnunity. 


There is absolutely no public religions teaching among the 
ZoariteSy unless the reading of Bimeler's Discourses may be 
given that name. Besides the principles given above, the only 
printed statement of their religious views is contained in these 
discourses, which, after Bimeler's death, were set down from 
memory by John Neff. One hundred sets of three volumes 
each were published in 1856, and it is said each family has 

These volumes contain worldly wisdom and reflections upon 
community life, as well as spiritual teachings. They give 
iuBtrnctiou in << morals, good manners, good order in house- 
keeping, cleanliness, health observances, and often physiolog- 
ical details." Orthodox views are held as to the inspiration of 
the Bible, the nature and trinity of the Oodhead, the fall of all 
through Adam's transgression, regeneration through Jesus 
Christ, and the resurrection of the dead — though this does not 
imply recognition in Heaven. The sacraments are not ob- 

For the Sabbath service, tlie people assemble quietly in the 
plain church,' the women sitting on the right, the men on the 
left of the reader. A hymn is announced. The tune is played 
on the small pipe organ. The first stanza of the hymn is read 
and sung, another stanza is read and sung, and so on. Then 
for an hour or more the gray-haired leader, from his unosten- 
tatious, waluut pulpit, reads Bimeler's Discourses in the Ger- 
man language. Another hymn is sung in the same manner as 
the first. The men sit down while the women pass out; then 
quietly follow them to their homes. The clink of collection 
money is never heard. The remainder of the day is passed 
without service and without special regard for Sunday, though 
in former days the rules for Sabbath observance were very 

During the summer a Sunday school is held, but the services 
consist in the reading of the Bible and the singing of hymns. 
The hymn books^ in use are the Oeistlicher Lieder — a collec- 

I See Bibliography Die Wahre Separation, u. s. w. 

* According to the ceoBtis of 1890, haB a seating capacity of 500 and ia i%orth $3,000. 

*For the Zoar hymn book, aee Bibliography, Sauinilang auserlesener geistlicher Lieder 
a. a. w. The Amana book la '*Davi«li8che8 Psalter-Spiel der Klmler Zions, oder Samm- 
laog TOD alten and neaen anserlesener Geistea-Gesangen alien wahren lieilsbegierigon 
Sealen and SAnglingen der Weiaheit; insouderheit aber denen Gemeindeu des HERRN 
sum gesegneten Gebraach mil Flelsa saaammen getragen, nebst den daza nothigen and 
Butalichen BeglaUnn. Amana ira St. Iowa, 1881." 

Tet«tegeB*N hymn book is entitled, **GeistlicheaBlamon-Oartlein and der Frommeq 
Lotterie. Dr. G. Kerlen, Eaaen, 1855." 


tion of their own — the Amana Psalter-Spiel and Terstegen's 
Blamen-Gartlein. The congregations are pitiably small, and 
nothing seems to be done to make the services attractive or to 
secure a fnller attendance of the members. No week-night 
service is held, nor any socioreligions meetings, which might 
tend to strengthen the common bond and weld the diverse 
sentiments into fervid altmism. 

The older members lament the lack of spirituality, the 
growth of pride and selfishness, and, among some of theyoang 
fellows, rowdyism and intemperance. The prohibition of the 
use of tobacco is now a dead letter.^ The use of beer and 
wine was encouraged by the erection of a brewery and plant- 
ing of vines. The members may have six glasses of beer a 
day, some more, from the hotel bar. The beer made in the 
cx)mmunity has a reputation for excellence, and as time is 
allowed in drinking, the damage done Is apparently not great. 
Some prefer to take the beer home for consumption. Hired 
men drink what they pay for. 

To the community, this decline of spiritual fervor is a seri- 
ous matter, because the officials must depend to such a degree 
upon the religious sanction. Punishment, except in the most 
serious offenses, c^m not be inflicted, and then only expulsion 
is provided. Lashings of conscience must take the place of 
the scourge of the law. 

The constitution of 1833 (May 14),* still in force, provides 
that the officers shall be elected on the second Tuesday in May, 
notice having been given twenty days previous; that the elec- 
tions shall be by ballot by majority vote, under the supervision 
of four members elected for that purpose. Members of the sec- 
ond class, male and female, possess the sufhrage.^ The officers 
are three trustees, who serve for three years, and may be 
reelected indefinitely; a standing committee of five, who act as 
arbitrators between a member and the trustees, and a cashier, 
who keeps the money and accounts, making a report to the 

I UiroU iiiim nud MOmo comrouDisUi gather in the barroom of the hotel of nn evening, 
itrluk, mnuke, and tell stories. At times they are ver.v bolMterous, but minglcHl with the 
more violent oaths are always some delivered in thoughtless, easy-going German fashion. 
Drinking Uints are not unknown in some of the houses. 

• Hee Ap|>endlx III. 

•Of late some of the men have objected to woman snffinige, perhaps because women 
have at all times been in the majority. But I think women have not opposM their hus- 
bands lu surliMis matters. There is nothing to prevent the women from holding office, 
but they never did. 


tniBtees aDnually.^ The radical differences between this con- 
stitntiou and that of 1824 were in the election of a standing 
committee instead of arbitrators, in the creation of the office 
of agent-general — ^held only by Bimeler — and in the educa- 
tional institnte already referred to. Trustees must provide 
food, house, clothing, and necessaries for each member with- 
out favor. They have charge of all property, all industries, 
appoint overseers in different departments, and assign work 
as they will. The trustees are, however, subordinate to the 
standing committee — the court of appeal. 

The mode of admission since the use of hired help became 
common has been as follows: The applicant was allowed to 
work for wages for a year or more, when he might, by a two- 
thirds vote of the members, be admitted as a novitiate by sign- 
ing the articles of the first class.' A child of members, desiring 
to join the society, might, upon attaining his majority, be 
admitted in the same way. By the articles he agrees to use 
all his powers as long as he has strength in laboring for the 
advancement of the society as the trustees may direct; to put 
his minor children under the control of -the trustees as if they 
were indentured; to deposit with the society (to be drawn as" 
ho needs it) any money he may possess, and to make no extra 
demands upon the society except in case of sickness. 

The trustees, on the other hand, agree to furnish him with 
suitable dwelling, board, and clothing, and with care during 
sickness, which is to be considered full compensation for his 

Both parties promise good moral behavior, according to the 
precepts and princix)les of Holy Writ, and an endeavor to 
cherish mutual love. The faithful performance of the contract 
is guaranteed by the penal sum of $50, which may be collected 
by any justice of the peace. 

After a year of labor and life under the preceding articles, 
a member of the first class desiring to speak and vote in meet- 
ings might make application for admittanc>e to the second class. 
If, after thirty days' notice, no objection was made, he was 
allowed to sign the ironclad covenant which follows: 

We, the sabscribera, members of the Society of Separatiats, of the second 
clatWy declare that we give all our property of every kind, not only what 
we poeaess, but what we may hereafter come in possession of by iuherit- 

' Tbe tnutees at the time disbandment was detormined opon were John Bimeler, Joe. 
Brymeier, and Christ Ruof, sr. ; the standing oommttiee, Chas. Shier*, Jacob Rieker, 
Jacob Ackernian, Benjamin Benter, and Jacob Burkhart; the cashier, Loais Zimmerman -, 
mayor of the village, J. J. Sturm, and clerk, A. Kaecherer. 

> See Appendix rv. 


aooe, gift, or otherwise, real or personal, and all rights, titles, and expec- 
tations whatever, both for ourselves and our heirs, to the said society for- 
ever, to be and to remain, not only during oor li vee, bot after our deaths, the 
exclusive property of the society. Also, we promise to obey all the com- 
mands and orders of the trustees and their subordinates with the utmost 
zeal and diligence, without opposition or grumbling, and to devote all our 
strength, good will, diligence, and skill during our whole lives to the 
common service of the society and for the satisfaction of its trustees. 
Also, we consign our children, so long as they are minors, to the charge of 
the trustees^ giving these the same rights and powers over them as though 
they had been formally indentured to them under the laws of the State. 

Thus he signed away his rights, with no guaranteed but only 
an expected couipeiisatiou in what the trustees might see fit 
to allow him. Because of this it was said in court : 

A contra^ under which a man obligates himself to serve somebody, no 
matter whom, for ever and ever, and never to own anything, present or 
future * * * is against the first principles of our polity and uncondi- 
tionally void. On this inalienability of rights our whole polity is built, 
but Zoar's polity rests on an alienation of them all.' 

Tet the relations of the community to the local, State, and 
Oeneral Governments are normal. The voters are almost all 
Bepublican. Members of the society have filled various town- 
ship offices. Their taxes, which in most prosperous times 
amounted to $3,600, have been promptly paid. 

Since the incorporation of the village they have had a mayor, 
six councilmen, and a secretary-treasurer. However, as all 
improvements are made by the society, any money accruing 
in the treasury of the village is by ordinance transferred to 
the treasury of the society. Police duties, by no means irk- 
some, devolve upon a marshal. The fire department is the 
proud possessor of au old hand engine, which has had no 
exercise since the foundry burned in the early eighties. 


The familiar employments and customs of southwestern Ger- 
many also influenced the early development of Zoar. Men and 
women alike engaged in agricultural pursuits. At harvest 
time all the able-bodied inhabitants went into the fields to cut 
the grain with the sickle; all were again employed at corn 
husking. Orchards and vineyards were planted. Wool and 
flax, grown on the place, were spun on hand wheels and woven 
in primitive looms. The lingering taste of Wurttemberg beer 

'See brief of David Quinn for plaiutiff in GaHely «t al. v. Sepamtiata, supreme ooart of 
QhiOf December, 1859, p. 30, to be found in aapreme court archives, Columbua, Ohio. 


suggested the brewery.' Wlieu the opportuuity to secure au 
irou furuace eauie, the people went to charcoal buriiiug. 

The priucipal industries have beeu mentioued. lu its last 
days Zoar had its wooleu factory, flour mill^ aud sawmills, 
planing mill, machine shop, brewery, aud cider mill, hotel, 
store, aud all ordinary shops. There are uo sigus to indicate 
the trade or business. You lift up the latch and walk in to 
discover for yourself. You may find no workman, for some 
follow two calliugs— for instance, the barber barbers on Fri- 
days and Saturdays aud works at tailoriug other days.^ 

Trade at first was carried on overlaud with Philadelphia, Pa., 
but after the opeuing of the canal goods were shipped by way 
of Cleveland to New York. Later, railroiids in the vicinity 
furnished better means of transportation to various markets. 
Bxports are now limited to timber, coal, woolen goods, aud 
flour, besides agricultural products and cattle. 

Division of labor never progressed very far amoug the Sepa- 
ratists. In the latter half of the society's life the trustees 
divided the work amoug themselves; one directed agriculture,^ 
another in the shops, aud the third conducted the hotel and 
had oversight of the cattle keepers. Early in the morning and 
at noon, from the mayor's ofilce, the trustees assigned work to 
those not permanently stationed. 

The labor of meu and women became, too, a little more dif- 
ferentiated/ Women came to do only the lighter work in 
haymaking aud harvest ; they spaded sind planted the gardens ; 
they did sewiug, quiltiug, knitting, as well as milking in the 
great, clean baru, where stood a hundred well-fed, well curried 
shorthorn cows, each of which had her name painted on the 

Wealth made the Separatists aristocratic enough to impose 
the disagreeable and arduous labor on hired meu. With the 

*la the brewery hBogs an old German print of Gambrinus, Konig von Flanclem und 
Brabant, b«lww which ia the following: 

"Aus GcrMto hab* ich Malz gemacht, 
Das Bier brauen zuersi erdacht. 
Dram kiiuneu die Brauer mit Wafarheit aagen, 
Daan sio einen Konig sum Meistor haben. 
Nun komnie ein audereb Uandwerk her 
Und zeige dergletchen Meister mehr." 
*In busy tiniea io snmnicr the shops are deserted for the fields. Even now women rake 
and gather sheavea in some fields, too rough or hilly for the biuder, where cradleH must 

'Six inerabers and twenty-six hired men are regularly employed in agriculture ; in busy 
seaaons aU turn oat to help. 

^At 6r8t men and women did the same work, even to wheeling out the offal of the 

HIST 98—13 


growth of capitalistic iustinct, they established a company 
store where the employees could spend their wages. Further, 
they became landlords and rented nine farms to outsiders on 
the shares. 

Their youths have never been sent to technical schools nor 
bound in large factories to learn new methods. Their indus- 
trial processes have ever conformed to the individualistic rather 
than to the factory system of labor. Their ancient methods 
and plodding wvork seem inconsistent with even the success 
attained. Their manufactures are of the honest, substantial 
sort, as is evidenced by the Zoar stoves and the furniture for 
the new hotel. Work is supposed to continue from sunrise to 
sunset. In busy times during the winter they work in the 
shops after dark. The ten-hour day is unknown. 

It might be thought that a feeling of independence must be 
engendered when the Zoarite warmed himself by coal dug at 
Zoar in a stove made in town from iron mined and smelted on 
the society's land ; used furniture made at Zoar of wood grown 
there; ate food raised there, or wore clothes manufactured 
from cloth woven at Zoar from wool grown and spun there. 
On the contrary, this independence is but seeming. Less than 
in the outside world can this man procure what he pleases. 
Within certain limits he may choose articles of food or of neces- 
sity from the common store, but this play of individuality must 
not proceed too far, lest inequality pave the way for jealousy, 
or the greater expense for the individual reduce too percepti- 
bly the common fund. Indeed, every worker on the outside 
possesses goods by the same title as the Separatist does. 
Neither made the goods which he uses, but each performed a 
certain labor which he exchanged for the labor of those fash- 
ioning the commodities which he wanted. A difference is 
noticed at Zoar because of the absence of a medium of 
exchange.' For many years no medium of exchange, except 
in dealing with the outside world, was known. 

Each week the members went to the '* King's palace" to 
secure the supplies of whatever sort needed by the family. 
Meat was sup])lied from the common slaughterhouse; wood 
and coal were delivered; bread and milk might be procured 
each evening. While this mode of distribution has been 
retained, another has grown up beside it. The community 

> Yet upon enteriufc the hotel the first object to attract attention is a penny-in-the-s1ot 
machine made for coin, and in which eggs could not be used. 


began to allow families to keep cliickens and ducks, and to 
dispose of the eggs as they pleased. Soon some families 
enlarged their henneries or saved their eggs, which they 
exchanged at the society's store' for Inxuries. Later the sum- 
mer visitors began to pay money to little boys for running 
errands or for rowing skifls on the river. Sons who had left 
the community sent money to parents who remained, and in 
other ways members became possessed of cash,*' which caused 
quarrels and covetousness on the part of those who had none. 
The old dream of goods in common and equality of members 
had already vanished though the covenants remained the 
same. By this communistic scheme none of the elementary 
factors in the production of wealth were eliminated. Land, 
labor, and capital were still necessary. None of them was 
really free, for all were under the control of the trustees. At 
times, at least, the slavery ^ of the members was greater than 
under the severest individualistic regime. Food was limited 
to the barest necessities, comforts in dress and dwelling were 
unknown. The prudential check to over-population was 
applied with a rigor to which but few working men would 
Howe says of the decade before 1840: 

The closest economy is shown in all their operations, for as the good old 
man Krentzner, the Boniface of the community, once observed, when 
starting on a bee line for a decaying apple cast by a heedless stranger into 
the street, ''Saving make rich.''^ 

This principle has been the foundation of the wealth of the 
Separatists, which consists in a town, more than 7,000 acres 
of land, cattle,^ manufactured products, and stocks. There is 
a debt of $13,000, while the vidue of the whole property is not 
less than $800,000. 

> The society's store wm established for trading with hired bauds and neighboring 
fiirmers. Cash or country produce was taken in exchange. The storehouse from which 
common distrlbatlon proceeds is a different institution in a separate building. 

* The Cleveland Leader says : "The girls who worked at the store l)egan to get presents 
of money from visitors, and one of them took a few cents out of the change she bad 
received and bonght a piece of ribbon. It was like introducing the measles. It was 
catching and presently the other girls came out in glorious colors. The trustees were 

> See Woolsey's Political Science, I, 314, 822; Brussel's Beige, quoted in Public Opinion, 
23, 270. David Quinn, for plaintiffs, in Gasely et al. v. Separatists, Ohio Supreme Court 
Deoomber, 1859, argued that since the Zoantes were "slaves liound to obey for life, if they 
eecaped from the community, they could be returned under the fugitive slave law." Brief 
as abore, pp. 87, 88. 

«Howe, III. 338, nisiorical Collections of Ohio. 

* About 95 cows, 50 calves, lOU steers, 1,000 sheep, 85 hogs, and 60 horses. 


Yet, is it not remarkable that, eveu with the strictest econ- 
omy, such a small baud, with no money when they arrived at 
Zoar, should within thirty years have amassed so much prop- 
erty, for in court as early as 1845 their wealth was estimated 
at $1,000,000. 


During the eighty years of associational effort at Zoar dis- 
turbances and discontent sometimes threatened a return to 
Sodom and Gomorrah, which in thiscase had not been destroyed. 
We have called attention to the lawsuit, brought by seven 
members, for the purpose of securing a division of the society^s 
property, which was decided in the United States Supreme 
Court in 1852 in favor of the society. Ui>on this outcome of 
the suit, the seven members were compelled to leave the society, 
though one was allowed to rejoin, and two, being aged, were 
granted pensions of $8 per month. 

Later John Gasely and wife brought suit for partition of the 
estate, after he had been expelled for laziness and refractori- 
ness. The supreme court of Ohio held in 18G2 ' that the society 
had the right to expel for cause, which was the only method 
of redress they possessed against full members who refused to 
fulfill their covenant; and that the excommunicated members 
could secure no portion of the property of the society, because 
they had relinquished all right, title, and interest in any prop- 
erty they owned when they joined, and had then agreed to con- 
sider the living, afterwards received, as full compensation for 
labor performed. 

Again and again, threatened disintegration ha^ been averted. 
About the time of IMnielor's death (1850-1854) a petition was 
circulated with the purpose of ousting the trustees, Ackernian 
and Sylvan, from office. It created much commotion, but came 
to naught. 

The final campaign against common ownership was opened 
December 3, 1895, at a full meeting of the members called to 
bring about, if iiossible, the peaceable dissolution of the Society 
of Separatists of Zoar. This was not the first occasion upon 
which old Mr.Beuter had begged the members to continue the 
communistic principle, but to refrain from the habits of glut- 
tony and intemi>erance which were sapping the foundations of 
the society. At this meeting, however, he found more serious 

1 See 13 Ohio Stat«, 144. 


opposition than ever before. The sentiment in favor of divi- 
sion ran liigli. Some of the members on either side gave ex- 
pression to bitter personal feelings, which only widened the 

December 30 of that year appeared the first number of the 
Kngitna, the only newspaper ever published in Zoar. It was a 
small, 4page monthly, with printed headlines and the remain- 
ing matter hectographed. The school teacher ' edited it with 
this avowed purpose — 

To edacate the members of the society to see that our by-laws need re- 
TiBion; to bring them to look npon communism as not consistent with 
modcni civilization, and to inculcate a spirit which holds sacred the rights 
of inilividnal members to obtain and hold private property. 

The Nngitna contained a declaration of independence from 
communism; disx)layed such headlines as '^ Communism — Huin- 
bugism," "Communism — Despotism," and branded members as 
hypocrites. According to it, "the individual interest had be- 
come primary, the general interest secondary ; " the golden rule 
had been revised to read, "Love thyself and slander thy neigh- 
bor,'' and "extravagance and jjomposity" had taken the i)lace 
of the early simplicity. The proper motto for communists, 
declares the Kugitna, is "!Nimms easy und lasz fnenfe griul 

While many of the best members favored the proposed 
change, this method of securing it was not approved. The 
trustees, of course, were irate. The expulsion of the editor was 
threatened. His claim for the liberty of the i)ress was hot and 
defiant, yet he succumbed to the authorities and but tiiree 
issues of this peculiar paper appeared. 

Through the succeeding months the Nugitna, being dead, 
yet 8i>oke. Dissatisfsvction became more pronounced. The 
community spirit was further troubled by difficulties with a 
member who would not work, though he ate. lie was expelled 
from membership, but is still supported by the society, while 
making threats of legal procedure. 

Future meetings of the society revealed an impassable gulf. 
Once thoroughly aroused, the desire for individual possession 
grew in intensity and spread throughout the society, power- 
fully encouraged by those who favored a division of the prop- 
erty. They say it was hardest to convince the lazy and 

> Levi Bimeler. * Take it easy and let nt be liftb grade. 


Lawyers from the county seat^ were engaged to draw up 
articles for disbandmeut and division. This contract, pre- 
sented at a meeting March 10, 1898, was form<alIy signed by 
the 13G members of the Society of Separatists. 

Three commissioners,^ not members, were to be api>ointed, 
who, after a survey and appraisement of the property, were to 
apportion the real estate equally among tlic members. Each 
was to have a tract of farm laud, a tract of timber land, and a 
town lot. Members of the same family or any number of men>- 
bars of the society might have their portions allotted to them 
jointly. The debts are to be paid from the sale of such pos- 
sessions ns can not bo divided, and the remaining cash distrib- 
uted in equal shares. The meetinghouse, graveyard, and town 
hall are to be the property of the village of Zoan' No extra 
provision was made for old or sick members, and the children 
of the communists receive no portion. 

A number of the younger members who have a trade think 
they will be better off when working for themselves, but even 
the handiest of them has a knowledge of only antiquated 
methods of industrial production. They are unused to the 
quick pace set by factory laborers in general, and comx>etition 
will be to them a hard master. Another member said intem- 
perance would greatly decrease when individuals had to pay 
for the liquor they consumed. 

The survey is now (April 1, 1898) being made, and within a 
few mouths an entirely new condition of afifiiirs will prevail 
throughout the Zoar lands. 


Noyes dismisses Zoar with a word. "We will lay aside," 
says he, "all the antique religious associations, such ns the 
Dunkers, Moravians, etc. We count at least seven of these 
which do not properly belong to the modern socialistic move- 
ment or even to American life. Having their origin in the 
Old World, and most of them in the last century, and remain- 
ing without change, they exist only on the outskirts of general 
society."^ Nevertheless the Oneida community, surely Ameri- 

• Patrick aud Neoly, New Philadelphia, Ohio. 

■Col. Samnol Foltz. of Niw Philadelphia; Ileury 8. FUher, of near Itolirar; and Wil- 
liam Kechor, of Stark Couuty, wore appointed. 

>Iti8 said the grist mill in to be kept in operation for two years, in order to attract 
capital to the town. 

^History of American StKsialiNms, 13. 

THfi SEt»AkATl8td OF &OAR. 199 

can and advocating advanced social theories, did not exist long 
enoagh to become "antique," though founded by l^oyes him- 
self—the high priest of communism. 

Very few American societies have been formed in the United 
States, which has indeed furnished a fertile but thin soil 
wherein foreign communistic societies have flourished for a 
time but presently withered away and died. The Shakers are, 
to be sure, an example of so-called success. The Amaua 
society, though still prosperous, is young. Moravians, Bun- 
kers, Jansonists, Icarians, and Zoarites have given up tlie 
community system. The Harmonists are few and weak. 

But, for at least one reason, Zoar should not be reckoned 
with communistic societies transplanted from Europe; for the 
Separatists came not as communists. Eeligious they were; 
but only when life depended on associated effort were they 

Zoar is no conscious experiment in scientific socialism to 
demonstrate the truth or falsity of the teachings of political 
economy or to usher in the millennium. This community was 
founded on the teaching of Jesus, "Sell all that thou hast and 
give to the i)oor" and on the well-known attempt of the Jeru- 
salem Church to have "all things in common." 

Mr. Charles Bradlaugh attributes ^ any success attendant upon 
socialistic experiments to (1) some religious or quasi-religious 
tie, (2) personal devotion to some one man, and (3) the dicta- 
torial power of some strong chief or chiefs. The most finan- 
cially successful days of Zoar were when the religious tie was 
strongest and the devotion to Bimeler greatest. This was also 
the time when affection for the family was weakened; when 
so-called degrading labor was done by any of the members, 
even women; when likeness of dress preserved an outward 
similarity, and when communication with the outside world 
was most difficult. Even with this combination of conditions 
favorable to communism, it must be admitted that their wealth 
was not due principally to their planning, but to the unforeseen 
circumstance that the Ohio Canal was cut through their lands, 
as Bishop Uill was freed from debt by grading the Chicago, 
Burlington and Quincy Eailway. 

It is easy to discover some of the causes which led to the 
overthrow of community life at Zoar. The decay of spiritual 
vigor became very marked, and the old people point out this 

' See North American Kevlew 144, 15. 


fact as the principal cause of disseiiRion. When the members 
no longer belonged to one Christian brotherhood no high 
exemplification of common brotherhood could be expected. 

The death of Bimeler, with its attendant demoralization, has 
been detailed. Bimeler necessarily limited the people in their 
consumption and insisted on long hours and laborious service. 
There was complaint and rebellion. The expulsion of the idle 
and several lawsuits followed. But these, it seems to me, 
tended, on the whole, not to dissolution, but to the firmer 
union of the communists who favored the expulsion. 

On the other hand, the introduction of hired laborers was 
perversive and from the first tended to disunion.^ Different 
religious or nonreligious views entered the community. Swear- 
ing and the use of tobacco (which had been prohibited) became 
common. Unpleasant labor was turned over to hired help and 
thus social classes began to be difiercntiated. 

(Iraduall}' the subordinated family interest develoi>eil in 
strength. Marriage came to be allowed, though the children 
were early separated from their parents; later children were 
brought up in their own family. The development of family 
solidarity occasioned cliques within the clan. Marriage was, 
however, always endogamous, and disturbance from the out- 
side was thus in great measure prevented. 

Infiltration of foreign ideas into tlie society went on but 
slowly in the first decade of its existence, when the country 
was wilderness around and ways of transi)ortation few. But 
first the canal and two inns increased tlie ease of communica- 
tion. Even new hired men, neighbors on their many visits, and 
newspapers, which came to be allowed, aroused in the young 
especially a wider hope. Finally came the new railroad and 
the new summer hotel with its invitation to visitors. Demor- 
alization of methods of exchange, and also of dress, of man- 
ners, and of character attended this influx of strangers. The 
simplicity of the i^eople disai)peared. In the contest with the 
big world the community was overcome. 

Artists, musicians, x)reachers were not encouraged by the 
Separatists. No genius could here find the means for carrying 
on his work unless he took some underhanded expedient. And 

1 1 oan not but ooiiHidcr that t)ic employment of laborera by a comiunno Is nn unneccw- 
Bary limitation and OHHt^ntiiil Hiibvorsion of the vory idoa of rommaniam. And every 
commmio oa{;ht to bo ko Bkillfully and librrnlly nmnage<l nn to nttrnct Homo of all kinds 
of labors ra ni>(>dod, mid cMpcriHlIy of unakilliMl nnd >vorbl-«]o;>;raiUMl labonirs. Wrigbt'a 
Principin, 443. 


it is a question whether any community could allow roncli lati- 
tude in such matters, even though the higher life of the com- 
munity depended upon it, because, following I)e Greef, while 
invention is tlie means of progress, it is out of harmony with 
the existing order, and in the reconstruction of society, in ac- 
cordance with the new ideal, more or less friction must result. 
Privileges granted to an artistic or intellectual class in a com- 
munity must create jealousy and lead to a shirking of manual 
labor on the part of the unfavored personsJ 

This very tendency is noticed in the industrial life of Zoar. 
Unable to secure greater individual reward for the consistent 
performance of a greater amount of labor, members attempted 
to equalize the retariis by doing as little work and getting as 
much from the commonwealth as anybody else. Here again is 
shown a tendency of communism — to level down instead of to 
level up. Equality is found in consumption just above the sus- 
tenance line; in intelligence, in a knowledge of the common- 
school branches; in religion, in the acceptance of certain dog- 
mas, however simple. 

Financially the Separatists made an excellent record in the 
youth of their community, and, though they retained their 
wealth down to old age, the total return seems meager when 
one considers the amount of land and the wonderful natural 
resources they i)osse8sed. Lack of technical and scientific 
knowledge prevented improvement in processes. Zoar,indeed, 
furnishes but a i>oor argument for, and no argument at all 
against, cooperative societies as organized at the present day, 
whether for economy in production or in consumption. The 
fundamental conditions, aims, and methods of the two are 
totally dififerent. " The earlier communism of this century,'' 
says Ely ,^ '^represented ideals which find their basis in an 
earlier stage of industrial development. » * * The com- 
munistic village based upon a voluntary agreement corre- 
siK>nded to a i)eriod of production on a smaller scale when 
each large household group could hope to become economically 
almost self-sufficient.'' 

General communism wonld be confronted by many problems 
which the communities of the past have never been called upon 
to solve. For instance, no elaborate scheme for discovering 
the probable demand of the people for a coming year, in order 
that a sufficient supply may be produced, is necessary so long 

» See WoolRCy'a Political Science, I, 318 » Socialism auU Social Roforni, 182. 


as the outside world stands ready to sapply a deficiency or 
purchase a surplus. Again, sabjective exchange valuation has 
but very little scope in a limited communism, being restricted 
by the trustees to the choice of but few articles. General 
communism would be in continual danger of revolution from 
such restriction. 

The question of reward for, or incentive to, mechanical inven- 
tion, or of sustenance of the inventor during the progress of 
his work, has never demanded complete solution in limited 
communism. Inventions perfected and tested outside have 
been imported and employed. 

Criminals and unworthy x)ersons would have to be provided 
for in general communism, for banishment, the principal x>uni8h- 
ment of smaller communities, would be no longer x)racticable. 

Indeed, no community as yet has found it wise to open its 
gates indiscriminately to promiscuous hordes. However sat- 
isfactory communism may be among perfect beings, the exper- 
iments, whether at Zoar or at other places on earth, have 
exposed irreconcilable idiosyncracies and faults even in those 
societies where only the most congenial were admitted to 

Yet those fanatically favorable to practical communism in 
the present time will, probably find confirmation of their theo- 
ries in the precarious and temporary success, the freedom from 
anxiety concerning age or sickness, as well as, indeed, in the 
instances of heroic self-abnegation and altruistic service among 
the Separatists of Zoar. 

Though our country has been said to be consecrated to asso- 
ciational effort, of which " E Pluribus Unum " (many individuals 
in one united whole) is the motto, yet its territory is covered 
with the graves of communistic societies, from the one which 
settled at Jamestown in 1007 to Zoar, which is so lately de- 
ceased. Had every isolated community been successful in its 
own small way in the promotion of ])eace, brotherhood, wealth, 
and happiness, the practicability of unlimited communism 
would not thus be demonstrated : 

To protest agaiust tho world by cessation from it is one thing; to recon- 
struct it is another. It is easy to organize, on the basis of a community 
of goods, a household, a family, or a village, but the process lends no help 
in the organizatiou of a county or a nation, und if it can not be extended 
to these larger limits it stands condemned.' 

> Courtney Ecouuiiiic Journal, 1 : 177. 


Nevertheless the influence of these societies, from James- 
town to Zoar, has not been totally lost. These old communi- 
ties, iK>litical and religious, have had some share in effecting 
the later really magnificent, philanthropic, and charitable 
progress in the socialization of human endeavor and in the 
correlation of divers forces to the advantage of the humaii 

It is improbable that reformers will soon — 

Wipe out eartli's farrows of the thine and mine 
And leave one green for men to ])lay at bowls, 
With innings for them all.' 

for our morality, our law, and our customs are founded upon 
the basis of private property, and have endured too long to 
lie easily overturned,' but since individualism tends, in its 
extreme form, to social disintegration and anarchy, the impor- 
tance of arousing and maintaining a spirit of devotion to the 
common welfare must not be underestimated. 


I. — Zoar publications, 

1. Die wahre Separation, oder die Wiedergebnrt dargestellet in geist- 
reicheu nnd crbaulichen Versammlungs-Reden und Betrachtungen, beson- 
ders aaf das gegenwurtige Zeitalter anwendbar, gehalten in der Gemeinde 
in Zoar im Jahre 1832. Gedrnct in Zoar, O., 1856. (The true Separa- 
tion or the Second Birth, presented in spiritual and \1evotional discourses 
and meditations, particularly applicable to the present age, delivered in 
the congregation at Zoar in the year 1832. Printed at Zoar, Ohio, 1856.) 
Three vols., pp. 2574. 

2. Sammlnng auserlesener geistlicher Lieder zum gemeinschaftlichen 
Gesang nnd eigenen Gebranch in Christlichen Familien. Zweite, ver- 
mehrte und verbesserte Auflage. Zoar, Ohio, 1867. (A select collection 
of spiritual hymns for congregational singing and for personal use in 
Christian families. Second, enlarged, and improved edition. Zoar, Ohio, 
1867.) pp.169. 

This seems to be, for most i>art, a reprint of a hymn book of the same 
title printed in Kentlingen, Wtirttcmberg, by Fleischhauer Sc Spohn, 1850. 

3. Etwas fiirs Herz! oder geistliche Brosamen von den HeiTn Tisch 
gefallen, gesammelt von einer Heilsbegierigeu Seele und in der Absicht 
zu einem gesegneten Gebrauch mitgetheilt, bestehcnd in einer Sammlung 
von Ausziigen vieler kraftiger Keden nnd Betrachtungen vor Ziilich auf 
das innere Leben gerichtet, oflentlich gehalten und vorgetragen von 
einem Frennde Gottes und der Wahrbeit in Zoar, hanptsachlich geeiguet 
anf die gegenwiirtige Zeit. Gedrnct in Zoar, O., 1860. (Something for 
the heart, etc.) 

4. Nagitna. Vol. I, Nos. 1-3, monthly. Dec, 1895, Jan. and Feb., 1896. 

' Aurora Leigh, Mrs. Browning, pt. 2. > See Nation, 26, 802. 


II. — Hooka and maffozifies re/errimg to Zoar. 

1. Conimunistio SocietioH in the United States. Clias. Nordlioff. (Har- 
pers, 1875.) pp. 99-110. 

2. American ('Omninniticd. W. A. Hinds. (Oneida, N. Y., 1878.) pp. 
23-38, 167-169. 

3. History of TiiHcarawas County, compiled by J. B. Mansfield. (War- 
ner, Beers & Co., 188^1 . ) pp. 545-576. 

4. Historical Collections of Ohio. Henry Howe, LL. I), ((^olnmbns, 
Ohio, H. Howe A Son, 1891.) Vol. Ill, pp. 887-3H9. 

5. Historio EvontH in Tnscarawas and Mnskingaci Counties. Kdit<»d by 
C. H. Mitchener. (Dayton, Ohio, 1876.) pp. 323-327. (In some pf»intit 

6. Penny Magazine. Vol.6, pp.411 if. 

7. Die nenn Welt: SkizKon von Land and I^enten der Nordamerikan- 
ischen Freistatten. Von Adolph Gorlung. (Leipsic, 1848.) (The New 
World: SketchcH of the Land and People of the Free States of North 
America.) Pp. 162-247 relate to his travels in Ohio. 

III. — Court reoord* and documenfk. 

1. United States Snpreme C'onrt Reports, 14 Howard, 589 ft. 

2. United States Circnit Court Reports, 5 Mclean, 223 ff. 

3. Snpreme Court of Ohio Reports, 13 Ohio Statue, 144 If. Also the papers 
in this c]«j«e on file at Columbus. 

4. Deed, mortgage, and law records and appearance docket; also will 
and plat records of Tuscarawas County, Ohio. 


The following articles of association and constitntion have been copied 
from translations su1unitt«d to the snpreme court of Ohio, in the case of 
(insely et a1. r. Separatints of Zoar. A few changes in capitalization and 
s])el1ing have been made; otherwise they are the same: 

Trantlation of the artielea of tuioeiation of the Society of SepanUUtt f^Zoar, T\t»eurafcai 

(Utunty, Ohio, adopted by its member* April 1.1, 1819. 

The undersigned members of the Society of Separatists have, from a 
true ChriHtian love toward Cod and their fellow-men, found themselves 
convinetHl and induco<l to unite thonis<dves, a<'rording to the Christian 
apostolic sense, under the following rulos, through a commnrsion of prop- 
erty, and they do hereby determine and declare that from the day of this 
date the following rules shall be valid and in effect: 

Aktiglk 1. 

Each and every member does hereby renounce all and every right of 
owni^rship of their ]irosent nud future, movable and immovable, pro|M^rty, 
and leave the Kanio to the free disposition of the directors of the society, 
elected by themselves. 

AllTICLE 2. 

The society elects out of itH own members their directors and managers, 
who shall eondiirt the general bnsinesH transactions and exercise the 
general duties of the society. They therefore take possession of all the 


active and piMnive property of all the members, whoee duty it Hhall be at 
theBanie time to provide for them; and said directors are further bound 
to give an account to the society of all their business transactions. 

Article 3. 

All the members of the society do hereby promise to render due and 
faithful obef^ience to the orders and regulations of their directors, and to 
8Ui>i>ort them us much as possible in all the common business transactions 
of the society. 


Casual contentions or disputes shall be decided by the aforementioued 
directors, which shall be dtme by a majority of them in c:ise they them- 
selves are not accused or implicated in the same. Should this bo the 
rase, tht*u the society elects one or more persona in the room of those who 
way be partial, until the number of three, live, or seven is lilled. 

Akticlk 5. 

Backsliding members can not, neither for propertj' brought in nor for 
their labors in the society, demand any compensation or restitution, 
except a majority of the society shall be willing to allow that or those 
backsliding members a reasonable compensation. 

Akticlk 6. 

The society can and may increase or reduce the number of its mi^mbers 
according to its own best judgment. Such, however, shall always be 
founded on union and the pieservatiou of the society. 

Articlk 7. 

The election will be held annually and, indeed, mtcording to the laws 
of the State of Ohio. 

Attested by the directors : 

.ToHN Bkkymaibk. 

John Gbobge Ackkrman. 

August Huuer. 
ZoAR, Statk ok Ohio, 

JjnHl 25, 1S19, 


Translation of the articUa of assoeiatian of the Society of Separatists o/ Zoar, Tuscarawas 

County, Ohio, adopted by itsmcmbera March 18, ISii. 

In the name of God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy 
Ghoet, Ameu. 

We, the undersignedJnhabitants of Zoar and its vicinity, in Tuscarawas 
Coanty and State of' Ohio, being fully jtersuadiHl and intending to give 
more full satisfaction to our consciences in the fulfillment of tho duties of 
Christianity and to plant, establish, and confirm the spirit of love as the 
bond of peace and union for ourselves and our ]iosterity forever as a safe 
foundation of sociiU order, do seek and desire, out of pure Christian love 


and persaosion, to uuite our several personal intorestH into one oomnion 
interest, and if possible to avoid and prevent lawsuits and contentions, 
or otherwise to settle and arbitrate them nnder the following rules, in 
order to avoid the disagreeable and costly course of the law as much as 

Therefon^ we unite and bind ourselves by and through this common 
and social contract, under the name and title of ''The Separatist Society 
of Zoar,'' and we agree and bind ourselves and promise each other and all 
together that we will strictly hold to, observe, and support all the 
following rules and regulations as faithfully as it ever may be possible. 

In like manner, we promise to support and warrant any such new arti- 
cles, amendments, or altorntions, which may be in favor of the above- 
expressed intentions, if such should be added to these articles and obtain 
the consent of the several members and subscribers hereof. 

Article 1. 

We, the undersigned members of the second doss of the Society of 
Separatists, declare through this first article the entire renunciation and 
resignation of all our property, of all and every dimension, form, and 
shape, present and future, movable or immovable or both, for ourselves, 
oar heirs, and our posterity, with all and every right of ownership, title, 
claims, and privileges to the aforesaid Society of Separatists, with the 
express condition that from the date of the subscription of each member 
such property shall be forever and, consequently also after the death of 
such member or members, remain the property of the said Separatist 


We hereby declare that each male person at the age of twenty-one, and 
each female person at the age of eighteen years, being ])ossessed with the 
requisite qualities and signing these articles, may become members of this 
society. New members will be admitted through and by the following 
form, but it will be necessary for tlicm, as well as for the first members, 
to resign all their property, as well for themselves as for their posterity, 
honestly and faithfully, and to renounce all their rights, titles, and claims 
entirely, and to make over the same to the directors of the society. 

Concealed debts of such now members will not bo paid by the directors 
of this society, but shall fall back to such members who shall have con- 
tracted them. In other respects, however, such new members shall have 
full claim to equal treatment and enjoyment with the rest. 

Artk^le 3. 

The society elects their own directors and their successors in ofilce, who 
do take and shall take all the property, as well that of the individual 
members as also that of the whole society, together with all rights, titles, 
benefits, and claims of all and every description, be the same present or 
in future, movable and immovable, with all their authorities and powers, 
into their disposition, and who are hereby required to hold ond manage 
for the general benefit of this society and according to the prescriptions 
of these articles, and which they shall conscientiously apply as aforesaid 
to the best of their skill and understanding. 


They, the said directors, shall be in duty bouud to consult upon and to 
conduct the whole economy of the society. They shall have power to 
trade, to purchiose and to sell, to conclude contracts and to dissolve them 
again, to allow and give orders, to which, however, they shall all have to 
agree and obtain the consent of the cashier thereto. 

The said directors shall further conduct and regulate the laboring part 
of the business of the society, and they shall have a right, whenever it 
may be necessary, to appoint agents or subagents for the purpose of 
doin^ or causing to be done such business as they may find suitable and 

They, the said directors, shall also conduct the entire provision of all 
and every member in boarding, clothing, dwelling, and other necessaries 
of life, in such proportion as situation, time, and circumstances may 

Article 4. 

We, the undersigned, promise and bind ourselves, diligently and in the 
most faithful manner, to obey the orders and regulations of the directors 
and their agents without opposition or murmuring; we further agree to 
apply all our strength, good will, diligence, and skill during life to the 
general benefit of the society and satisfaction of said directors. 

In like manner, we do promise and agree under the same expressions 
and determinations, our children during the time of their minority to be 
subjected to all the regulations and dispositions of the aforesaid directors, 
not only as it regards labor and their provisions, but also to any other 
kind of labor, employment, or engagement, in or out of the society, as 
long as they are minors or as long as said directors may find it best to do 
so ; and the directors shall have the same power so to do as soon as they 
may find it suitable and more beneficial to do so, as if the parents of such 
children had done this themselves; for the binding of children out of the 
society, however, a majority of the votes of the members must first be 

Abticlk 5. 

This article entitles and empowers the directors of the society and their 
successors in office, in the name of the society, to receive and take charge 
of all inheritances of deceased members, together with all the rights, titles, 
and claims in and to the same, and to ask, demand, and hold the same ; 
in short, they shall have full right and power, even as if such deceased 
person or persons were yet living and did themselves ask for, demand, and 
receipt for the same; conse<]uently the children, friends, or relatives can 
not become heirs of their parents, friends, or relatives, since all the prop- 
ert yi >f the membo^ is by them doomed to be and remain forever the 
property of the said society. 

The directors of said society are further, by this fifth iirticle, entitled 
and empowered to appoint other suitable persons under them, even out of 
the society, and empower them to collect, or cause others to have collected, 
properties, goods, or moneys belonging to members who may yet be living, 
as well as snoh who may be deceased, and to receipt or cause them to be 
receipted for, the same even as if the person or persons for whom it was 
done bad collected, taken charge of, and receipted for the same themselves. 



Casual content ions or diBputea between two or wore mombers aliall be 
made known to the directors of the society and shall bo by thuui investi- 
gated and decided according to the majority of their votes. Should, how- 
ever, the dispute of any member or members bo af^ainst more than one of 
the directors themselves, then the parties shall have a right to iipi>eal ; or 
if any of the parties should not bo satisfied with the decision of two dis- 
interested directors, then such party may proceed to an appeal, which 
appeal shall be and consist in the following form : 

Akticle 7. 

There shall be a board of arbitration or court of ajipeal elected by the 
society, who shall be empowered and established by this article; such 
board may consiHt in from one to three persons, and shall be elected by 
the society, and through a majority of votes; said board shall be invested 
with the highest and concentrated power of the society, whose organ or 
instrument it shall actually be. 

Said board of arbitration — may it consist in one, two, or three persons — 
shall be bound to observe all the different branches of economy of the 
society, and, whenovertheymay find it necessary, to give orders and instruc- 
tions, to investigate accounts and plans which may have been made by the 
directors or their agents; in short, all transactions of importance and of 
the value of more than fifty dollars, shall have to obtain the consent of 
said board of arbitration before they shall bo considered binding and valid. ' 

The decision of said board uf arbitrators, in all kiuds of litigation, with- 
out any exception, shall bo treated and considered as final and conclusive. 
Whoever acts contrary and will not be satislled with their judgment shall 
forfeit and lose all the enjoyments and rights of a member; and such 
furthei binds itself, in case he or they shall apply tu any court of justice 
for a decision out of the society, to pay to said society all the damages 
accruing by such application, besides the costs accruing to said society by 
reason of such suit in law. 

Said board of arbitration shall further have power in the name of the 
society, according to the result of circumstances and when sufficient com- 
plaints have been adduced by the directors, to excommunicate arbitrary 
and refractory members, to cross out their names and signatures, and to 
deprive them of all future enjoyments of the society. 

In like manner shall such arbitrators determine upon the sum or sums 
which such excommunicated person or persons shall have to pay to said 
directors for damages caused by them to said society, for which purpose 
the directors of the society shall hereby be empowered in case of a refusal 
or non fulfil Iment [of] this article to take legiil measures iu law against 
such excommunicated and refractory member or members and to force 
them to the fultillment of this duty and to the payment of damages as 
above mentioned, through the existing form of the general laws of the 

All the judgments given by said board of arbitration, under the form 
and circumstances above mentioned, shall be made out in writing and 
carried into a book prepared for that purpose, and shall in all courts of 
justice lie considered valid, effective, and irrevocable. 


Articlk 8. 

Each ponon desiring to become a member of this nociety must first bu 
of full age; that is, each uiale pcrsou must be twenty -oue and each female 
person must be eighteen years of age or more. Applications fur being 
' admitted as members must be made to one or more of tlie directors, who 
shall investigate into the reasons, grounds, and capability of such apply- 
ing person or ptrrsons, and if they find no direct cause of objection against 
such person, they shall give notice of such application to the board of 
arbitration and shall invite such person to appear at a certain time and 
place, and if then no impediment shall be found and at least two-thirds of 
the society shall vote for the rece]»tion of such person, then the applicant 
shall be by said board of arbitrators admitted to sign tliese articles of 

Article 9. 

The elections for arbitrators and directorn shall be held as often as the 
society may deem it suitable and necessary, and without having first 
determined upon any particular form for the same. There shall at all 
times, il possible, bo three directors in oflSce, yet, for the want of one, 
two shall be capable of transacting business, and eaeh candidate for sai<l 
office must, at least, have been a good member of the society for five 
years previous, and must have proven a good moral character. 

A member of the board of arbitration must liave beeu a member of the 
society for at least ten years previous, nnd must have lived without blem- 
ish as much as possible, if he shall bo considered eligible. This shall, 
however, not be counted from the date of the signatures t-o these articles, 
but from the time of the reception and free exercise of the general prin- 
ciples of the Separatists. 

Members of the board of arbitration nnist be members, but they may be 
nousubscribers. Directors, however, must be both members and subscrib- 
ers to these articles. 

All subscribers, male and female, have a right to vote at elections, 
except if anyone, by disorderly deportment, should have rendered himself 
for a time or even forever unlit ibr said purpose, on whicd the directors 
iu oftice, or for want of them the board of arbitration, shall have to 
decide. The officers shall be elected and established by a majority of the 
votes, consequently the highest power shall be and remain forever in the 
hands and disposition of the society, who does hereby reserve the right 
at pleasure to remove and to establish officers or to place others in their 
stead ; iu short, to make any alteratious which may be deemed best. 

Articlk 10. 

The society keeps ot elects its own cashier, whoso duty it shall be to 
manage their receipts, moneys, and expenditures, and besides him, i:o one 
shall bo entitled to keep any moneys without the order of the cashier. 
Even tho directors shall, without delay, deliver all moneys, notes, bonds, 
and such like, as property belonging to the society, into tho hands of the 
cashier. Every transgressor of this provision may bo accused by any 
member or other person before the board of arbitration, who shall by 
HIST 98 U 


them bo treated aud. dealt with according to the provisions of the sevenlh 

The cashier is further bound to apply all moneys which may come into 
his hands by the order of the directors and arbitrators to the benefit of 
the society, to pay their debt» and liquidate their general wants. 

Article 11. 

Individ nal demands, which may either be made by backsliding members 
or by such who, on account of disorderly deportment, may have been 
excommnnicated — may such demands consist in money, goods, or other 
effects, under whatever name it may be— shall be by this article, for our- 
selves as well as for our posterity, forever abolished and abrogated; 
neither shall there ever be any demands made to the society by anyone 
for any remuneration for services nor wages for any labor done for said 
society. All attempts made with this intent shall bo confined to the pro- 
visions of the seventh article. All deficiencies and equivocations in these 
by-laws shall never be explained in favor of the complainants or accusers, 
but shall always be translated and explained to the benefit of the society, 
and be treated in the same manner. 

All decisions and judgments passed by the board of arbitrators shall iu 
all and every case bo binding, valid, and have their full force. Disputes 
between directors and members, or between both, shall also be decided by 
the board of arbitration. 

Article 12. 

Those articles made, established, and adopted on the 15th day of April, 
1819, shall be treated and considered as the basis and foundation of these 
present articles; they shall be valid and in force nntil the signing of these 
present ones, aud shall also be aud remain the same to all those who had 
signed them ; and these present articles shall only represent a more detailed 
explanation of the former, but iu nowise shall these be considered or 
explaiued as a contradiction of tho same. 

Thus done in Zoar, Tuscarawas County and State of Ohio, this 18th day 
of Mareb, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred twenty and 
four (1824). 

The signatures of the members are hereby witnessed by the directors 
of the society iu ofiico at the time. 

John George Ackerman, 
; * Jacob Sciiackeh, 

Michael Sindlinger, 




Translation of the Oonttitution of the iioeiety of SiparatUtMof Zoar. 

Introduction to the constitution of the Society of Separatists of Zoar: 

Pursuant to an act of the legislature of tho State of Ohio, passed A. D. 

1832, No. 126, entitled "An act to incorporate tho Society of Separatists 

of Zoar, Tuscarawas County, Ohio," we, the undersigned membei-s of said 

Society of Separatists of Zoar aud its vicinity, have fouud it expedient Xo 


renovate oar hitherto existing coiutltatiou as contained in the following 
articles : 

In the name of God the Father and Jesus Christ the Sou and the Holy 
Uhost. Amen. 

In order farthermore to secure our consciences that satisfaction proceeil- 
iug from the faithful execution of the duties which the Christian religion 
domauds, and to plant and establish the spirit of love as the bond of 
peace and unity for a permanent foundation of social order for ourselves 
and our posterity forever, we therefore seek and desire in accordance 
with pure Christian principles to unite our various individual interests 
into one common stock; and, conformable with the example of the primi- 
tive Christians, all inequalities and distinctions of rank and fortune shall 
be abolished from among us and consequently to live as brothers and 
sisters of one common family.' 

Pursuant to the foregoing principles and resolutions, we voluntarily 
unite and bind ourselves by this joint agreement under the name and 
title of ''Society of Separatists of Zoar/' and wo obligate ourselves each 
to the other, that we will hold to the following articles and rules; that 
we will observe and support the same to the best of our abilities, which 
from the day of the date hereof shall be in force and virtue in law. 

Ahticle 1. — Regulating eleotiona. 

All elections for the divers necessary officers of the society shall, agree- 
ably with the provisions of the act of incorporation, be held on the second 
Tuesday of May annually, and, in accordance with the statute of the State 
of Ohio, be decided by ballot and majority of votes. On said election day 
shall annually be elected one trustee (extraordinary circumstances ex- 
cepted), annually one member of the standing committee, quadrennially 
one cashier and an agent-general, unlimited in term as long as he pos- 
sesses the confidence of the society. The time and place, when and where 
the elections shall be held, also the number and kind of officers to bo 
elected shall be made known by the trustees of the society at least twenty 
days previous to the election ; for which purpose the society or any ten 
members thereof shall at each election appoint a committee of four per> 
sons whose duty it shall be to conduct the election in conformity with the 
laws of this country. The society shall elect all the officers from amongst 
the members thereof; whereby special refereuoe shall be had to the neces- 
sary and requisite qualifications, integrity, and faithfulness of the candi- 

Article 2. — ICleotion of irusteen and their duties. 

The society shall elect from amongst its members three suitable persons 
as its directors or trustees and their successors in office, who shall take 
charge of the joint property of all the undersigned members; said trustees 
shall, as stated in the first article, be elected by majority and agreeably to 
the following regulations : The majority for three years, second majority 
for two years, and third majority for one year, and after the expiration 
of one year, annually one trustee. Should the case occur that one or more 
candidates of one and the same office receive an equal number of votes, 
then the balloting shall be repeated until a legal majority shall be 
obtaincMl. Each trustee may remain in office for three years in sucdessiou 


iiDlesH circuiiistaiices to tho contrary, such an death, HicknesSi absence, 
refusing to serve, etc., render such impossible, or in any case tho miscon- 
duct of any one of the trustees cause the society to discharge oue or the 
other, and to fill such vacancy as said society may choose; which right of 
discharging and replacing the said society reserves to itnelf, before tho 
expiration of the ordinary term of three years, or even of one year; yet 
each trustee shall remain so long in office until his successor be chosen. 

Said trustees are hereby empowered and in duty bound to take charge 
of all tho property, real and personal, which this society either now or in 
future may possess, including all property of newly accepted members, 
movable and immovable, of whatever name and description it may bo; 
likewise are they authorized to receive all kinds of legacies, donations 
and personal claims; iu fine, every species of property to which any of 
the members mtky tit any time have just claim, to demand and collect the 
same by legal proceedings, and shall appropriate and apply the same con- 
scientiously to the best of their knowledge and skill, in behalf and for 
the exclusive benefiti use, and advantage of said society. And it shall 
also be the duty of said trustees carefully to furnish each member,' with- 
out respect to person, with board, clothing, and dwelling and other neces- 
saries alike in days of sickness and of health as good as circumstances 
will allow. Said trustees shall furthermore take charge of the economical 
affairs of this society; consult over and direct all the business and c^use- 
cjuently to assign to each individual member its duty and work to be per- 
formed, to which at least the majority of said trustees, if uot all, shall 
be agreed. Said trustees are hereby empowered to appoint sub trustees 
or agents as many and to whatever purpose they may see proper and nec- 
essary ; and all such subtrustees or agents shall be responsible to tho said 
trustees for all their transactions. Said trustees shall fill the various 
branches of economy with suitable persons, who shall conduct the same, 
subject to tho coutrol of said trustees and liable to like responsibility for 
the conduction thereof as other subtrustees or agents. But all resolutions 
iu regard to important undertakings shall bo submitted to and be subject 
to the approbation of the standing committee, and said trustees shall at 
all times be responsible for all their transactions to said standing commit- 
tee. Casual discord, differences, and misunderstandings shall throughout 
by way of arbitration be settled amicably by the trustees of said society; 
in case that this can not bo accomplished by and through said trustees, 
then tlie court of appeals, cited iu subsetpient articles, shall solely decid(>. 
And the said trustees are by this article bound to maintain and promote 
peace and order in the society; they are furthermore hereby authorized 
to propose to the board of arbitration or standing committee such regula- 
tions and improvements calculated to facilitate those purposes; and if a 
majority of both bodies approve of the measures thus proposed as proper 
and necessary, they shall thereupon bo recommended to be observed as 
such, provided that such amendmont bo in no wise contradictory to these 

Aktkxk 3. — Election and dutien of ayent-tjeneral. 

In order partly to simplify, and likewise in many instances to ea84) tho 
business and duties of the trustees, the society shall elect an agent-general, 
who shall act for and in the namo of said society. Ho is hereby author- 
ized to buy uud sell, make and conclude contracts, and to discontinue and 


annnl them again; to employ agents beyond the circle of the society and 
to correspond with them; also to issue and again to accept orders; to 
direct and snperintend, to the welfare of the society, all its trading and 
commercial concerns; in fine, all affairs which in anywise appertain to 
the aforesaid line of bnsiness, of whatever name, shape, and descriptions 
they may be, and shall be carried on under his direction and superintend- 
ence. In like manner shall all the manufactures and similar works be 
under his superintending care, to the furtherance and improvement of 
which he shall pay due regard, and to regulate them in such a way and 
manner as he shall from time to time find it most conducive to the gen- 
eral good of said society. The agent-general shall furthermore be entitled 
to appoint subagents, when and as many as he shall stand in need of, who 
shall be empowered to transact in his name all such business as he shall 
see proper to charge them with; and said subagents shall be held respon- 
sible to the agent-general for all their transactions; and the said agent- 
general shall, in appointing subagents, act by and with the consent of t lie 
truatei's, whoso concuiTence shall also be necessary' in all undertakings of 
moment and importance; and for the due administration of the powers 
and duties hereby committed to his care and charge, he shall be account- 
able to the standing committee of the society. All deeds, mortgages, and 
similar instruments of writing shall be executed in the name of the trus- 
tees and be placed to the safe-keeping of the agent-general. 

Articlk 4. — Election and duties of Ihc utanding committee* 

By virtue of these articles the society shall elect from amongst its mem- 
bers a btanding committee, which shall consist of five persons, but in case 
a vacancy of one or two members thereof shall occur, either by death, 
sirkneas, absence, or otherwise, then the three remaining members shall 
be capable of transacting business until the next succeeding election; this 
committee shall be invested with the concentrated power of said society 
and ahall execute all those duties which are marked out for it in this consti- 
tution ; in all extraordinary cases shall this committee serve as a court of 
api>eal8, and shall, as the highest tribunal, bo hereby empowered to decide 
as each, and the judgment thereof shall b'j final and binding in all cases, 
provided that no complaint shall be brought before it for decision except 
by way of appeal; that is, in case one or both of the contending parties 
should lie dissatisfied with the decision of the trustees. Trustees can 
never at the same time be members of this committee. The election of 
said committee shall be so regulated that annually one member to said 
committee shall be elected, and that each member may hold his ofiice for 
five years successively, and are at all times eligible again as long as they 
{MMifli^ss the confidence of said society. 

Articlk 5. — Election of cashier and hie duties. 

The society shall choose a onshier or treasurer to be elected for the term 
of four years, and shall, after the expiration of such term, be eligible again 
so long as the society intrust him with the station; said cashier shall 
take charge of and duly administer to all its financial concerns, and besides 
him none of the members shall be entitled to hold any money, without 
order from the cashier. Even the trustees and the agent-general sliall 


deliver np all money, notes, bonds, checks, etc., na belonging to the 
society into the treasury without delay ; and every transgressor of this 
provision shall, by any member or person whosoever, be prosecuted for 
the same before the trustees of the society and shall be treated by them 
according to the x)rovisions of the tenth article. It shall also be the duty 
of the cashier to appropriate and apply all moneys received, conformable 
to the directions of the tnistees, the agent-general, and the standing 
committee, exclusively to the benefit of the society ; to pay the society^M 
debtH, defray the general necessaries, and to credit said trustees with 
the surplus fund. All and every person who has charge over any one or 
more of the branches of economy shall hand iu their aoooants to the 
cashier at such times as he shall see proper to order the same; and the 
trustees are hereby entitled to request from the cashier an annual account 
of hiH transactions if they deem it necessary. The caehier shall have the 
right, if circumstances require it, to appoint a clerk to keep regular rec- 
ords of elections and of such other important measures which the divers 
officers shall deem necessary. 

Articlk 6. — Delivery of property and duties of th^ member $, 

We, the undersigned members, second class of the Society of Separatists 
of Zoar, declare by these presents that all our property of all and every 
description, which we either now or iu future may possess, movable or 
inmiovable, or both, together with all claims, titles, rights, devise, and 
legacMos, etc., of whatever kind and name they may be, as well for our- 
selves as our descendants, heirs, executors, and a<lministrators, shall be 
forever given up to naid society, with the express condition that such 
projierty shall from the date of the signatures of each member forever 
henceforth, consequently aft4*r the death of each respective member, be 
and remain the exclusive property of said society ; also do we promise and 
bind ourselves most faithfully and industriously to execute all the orders 
and regulations of said trustees and their subtrusto<'s or agents, without 
opposition and murmuring, and we likewise agree to apply all our strength, 
good will, industry, and skill for life to the general benefit of said society 
and to the satisfaction of the trustees ; likewise do wo promise and agree, 
under the same conditions and regulations, to place our children, whilst 
they are in a state of minority, under the directions and regulations of 
said trustees, in same manner as if they were legally bonudcn by lawful 
indentures to tlioni and their successors in office, until they shall have 
attained their proper ago, as defined by the laws of this State. 

Akticlr 7. — Acceptance of members. 

In accepting new members the following rule and order is to be 
observed: Kacli and every perstm wishing and desiring to become a mem- 
ber of the second class of this society shall first of all have attained to the 
lawful age — that is, a male person shall be twenty-one and a female 
oighteen years of age; secondly, shall such person or persons have lived 
in and dwelled with tlie society for the t(«rm of at least one year and shall 
have been u member of the first class of this society, without exception if 
even born and educated in the society, and provided that they have faith- 
fully fulfilled the contract previously concluded with the trustees of this 


society at their entrance into tlie first class — if snch person or persons can 
show both the aforesaid qualiflcations, and the resolution not being pre- 
maturely made, but who by their own free will and accord, self-convinced v 
are so reaolved, snch person or persons shall make known their intention 
to one or more of the trastees, whose duty it shall be to hear snch person 
or persons; and if after having taken the applicant's motives into due 
consideration no well-founded canso for rejection or postponement be 
fonndy then said tmstecs shall make it known to the society at lenst thirty 
days previous, and appoint the time and place when and where sucii sign- 
ing shall be performed; and if during such interval no complaints or 
objections from the part of the society or any of its individual members 
against snch jierson or persons be made thereupon, they may be admitted 
t(> the signing of this constitution, and after signing such are thereby con- 
stitnte^ members of the second class of the society, and shall 1)e consid- 
ered and treated as such; provided that in case such new member shall 
have kept secret any of its contracted debts or other obligations foreign 
to the society, such members shall have forfeited all privileges and rights 
of membership, in case sufficient proof be found to establish the fact. 

Article 8. — Education institute. 

In accordance with this article the society shall keep or establish a gen- 
eral education institute for all the children in the community, at the head 
of which snch male or female overseers shall be placed whose qualifica- 
tions Hhall be found best suited for said pnrpose, and, agreeable to this 
proviso, all the parents of children in this society bind themselves to 
deliver np and place their children, after having arrived at the third year 
of their age or sooner, to the overseers of said institntion, where Haid chil- 
dren shall receive, according to their age and faculties, appropriate educa- 
tion and tuition. Said overseers shall be chosen and engaged by the 
standing committee, subject to the express dnty that they shall exert their 
best endeavors and care to give those children placed under their care, as 
well in moral as in physical consideration, the best possible education, 
thereby having in view not only the attainment of scientific branches of 
knowledge, but also gradually train them to performing the divers branches 
of manual labor. And it is hereby made the duty of said committee to 
keep strict superintendence over the institntion. And they shall also be 
authorized to place such children, as soon as their age, abilities, and bodily 
condition will permit, under the control of the truHtees, who shall give 
them such employment as they may be able to perform. 

Artkxr 9. — Power of the trustees to collect and lake ohanje of heritayesj etc. 

ThiH article authorizes and empowers the trnstees and their successors 
in ufUce, in the name of the society, to hold and take possession of all 
remaining property of deceased members, with all their rights, titles, and 
claims whatsoever, to demand or cause the same to be demanded and col- 
lected, and, Anally, they are hereby invested, as the universal heirs, in the 
name of the society, to act with full rights and power as if such deceased 
]H!rson or ]>ersons were yet living and themselves demanded and acquitted 
for the same; hence the children, friends, and relatives, whether they be 
in or without the society, can not be or become heir to such an heritage of 


n (Icceascd meuibor, sinco all property forever is and shall remain tbe por- 
tion of snid society. And the trustres of said society are and shall l>e 
liereby authorized to empower other suitable persons in or out of tbo 
society to demand and collect, or cause to be demanded and collected, 
moneys, estates, and cifects of persons, c^ither yet living or deceased, in 
same manner as if such person or persons for whom such was done bad 
themselves demanded and collected the same, received it, and receipted 

Articlk 10,— Contevtionn, etc. 

Casual contentions between two or more members, and complaints, of 
whatsoever kind and description they may be, shall be brought before tbo 
trustees and by them examined and settled, liut in case one or tbe oth<*r 
party should not be satisfied with the decision of said trustees, oc should 
any one or more of the trustees themHelves be involved in such contimtiou, 
etc., then appeal may be bad to tbe standing committee or court of appeal, 
whoHO decision shall in all cases be final and binding. Whosoever shall 
act contrary to this provision and will not be satisfied with tboir Judg- 
ment looseth and dcbarreth him or her self of nil further enjoyment nnd 
rights of a member. 

Articlk 11. — Seceding member $. 

Should nny member or members find cause to secede from the society, 
thoy shall make known such their intention to one or more of the trusU'ce, 
whoso duty itshall be to notify the society thereof in order that, if any com- 
plaints be existing against such member or members, they may betimes be 
brought forward to said trustees, who shall thenceforward act in respect 
to them agreeable to all the attending c ire urns tan cos; but shoald any 
seceding member, unknown to the trustees, have contracted any debt or 
debts upon the community or been the cause of subjecting the society to 
nny cost or injury, in such case said member or members shall make satis- 
factory restitution or otherwise render such indemnification n.s the said 
trustees shall demand, and in case such sccedcr or seceders should not 
content themselves with the Judgment of said trnstees and refuse to make 
satisfactory restitution, in that ca-se both p.irties, the trustees and seced- 
ing menibei's, shall be entitled to an appeal to the standing committee nnd 
the dc^cision thereof shall in all cases be binding and final. Should any 
])crson or persons, notwithstanding this provision, be dissatisfied nnd 
apply to a court of Just ice beyond the limits of the society for assistance, 
in such case thoy are also hereby bound to render due indemnification for 
all dnnmgcH and loss of time therel)y caused to nnd sustained by said 
society. In case any seceding ^lerson Hhould refuse to comply with tbe 
demand of the trustees in pursuance of the decision of the standing com 
mittee, the trustees shall be authorized to prosecute such person or per- 
sons and by course of law to bring them or cause them to be brought to 
the due fulfillment of theiliityor payment ns aforesaid. Kuitherniore 
shall the committee bo authorized to act in like manner with all those 
who, on account of acting contrary to dnty and good order, have been 
expelled from the society, to expunge their names and signatures, and to 
excommunicato them from all further eni(»yinent and rights of a member 
of the society. Neither the seceding perscnis who leave the society <»f 
their own accord nor thone who an* exptdlcd tlie.refrom can ever b}' virtue 
of their signatures and by tlie i»roviHions of this article, under any 


pretonae wliatover, in any ve'ige make any demand or obtain, either npon 
property bronght to the Bociety or for their labor or any other service 
which they may have rendered to the society, in whatever the same shall 
have consisted, any compensation whatever. Yet Huch person or persons 
may, if they choose, sabmit their pretensions to the standiup; committee, 
whose opinion shall decide whether or not, or nndcr what condition such 
applicants shall be entitled to receive any indemnity. All Judgments of 
the committee issued pursuant to the foregoing prescriptions shall be 
made out in writing and recorded in a book to be kept for that purpose, 
which shall in all conrts of law and equity be considered valid and inoon- 
testjvble. Each given judgment of said committee shall be handed ovor 
to one or more of the trustees, by virtue of which he or they are author- 
ized to execute such judgment or ciuse it to be executed, either on volun- 
tary terras or by the ordinary process of law. This constitntion shall never 
in any wise be broken or annulled by dissatisfied or seceding members. 

Apticlk 12. — Concerning the conatitution, 

Tlie society ran at any time, whenever deemed expedient and necessary, 
alter this their constitution, or any one of the articles thereof, or add 
thert'to, provided that such alteration or addition shall always bo founded 
npon the principles of nnity and conservation of the society, and only 
then practicable if at least two-thirds of all the members be in favor of 
it. In no wise shall this present renewed constitution ever be viowed as 
declaring or presenting ineffectual or void the articles si^ed by the mem- 
liers on the fifteenth day of April, 1819, and those on the eighteenth day 
of March, A. D. 1824. On the contrary, said articles shall be acknowledged 
as the basis of the present constitution. All unintelligibleness, equivoca- 
tion, or deficiency which peradventure might exist in this constitution, 
shall always be construed and treated in favor of the society, and never to 
the advantage of individual members. At least annually, at a suitable 
time, shall this constitution be publicly read at the place of public meet- 
ing. Written and concluded in Zoar, Tuscjirawas County, and State of 
Ohio, the fonrtoenth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
eight hundred aud thirty-threu. 


A rtielet of the firH elana. 

We, the nndersigned, members of the first class of Separatists, party of 
the first part, and George Gasely, Jacob Ackermau, and Christian Kuof, 
trnsteoa elect, and their successors in office, of the Separatists' Society 
of Zoar, iu the county of Tuscarawas, aud State of Ohio, party of the 
second part, have, through confidence mutually reposed iu one another, 
established and by these presents do establish the following rules and 
principles of social compact for the better fulfillment of the duties of 
mankind, which we owe one another, and also for the furtherance of our 
spiritual and temporal welfare and happiness. 

Article 1. 

We, the said party of the first part, do declare, that by our own free 
will and accord we have agre<'d and by these presents do agree and bind 
ourselves to labor, obey, aud execute all the orders of said trustees and 
their sncceasors in ofllce; aud from the day of the date hereof henceforth 


to use all OUT iudustry and skill in behalf of the oxclnsivc benefit and 
welfare of the said SeparatisU' Society of Zoar, and continue to do so, uh 
long as strength and health will permit, to the entire satisfoc-tton of the 
said trustees and their successors in ofiice. 


And we do also hereby agr<^e and bind ourselves firmly by these pres- 
ents to put our minor children under the care and control of the said 
trustees and their succeHsors in ofldco, iu the samn manner ii« if they hod 
been bound by indentures to serve and dwell with them and th<*ir succes- 
sors in office, for and during the term of their minority, subject to all the 
duties and likewise entitled to the same rights and protection as inden- 
tured children by law are subject and entitled to, until they shall have 
attained their proper age as dciined by the statutes of the State of Ohio. 

Article 3. 

And the said trusters do hereby for themscdvos and their successors in 
ofiflre, agree and bind themselves to furnish the said party of the first 
part witli suitable dwelling, board, and clothing, free of cuHt, tlio cloth- 
ing to consist at any time of not Ichh than two Hnit4», including the clothes 
brought by the said party of the first part to this society; and iu cane of 
sickncHs, necessary care and attendance is hereby promised to fho saiil 
party of the first part; and tliis performance of the trustees and their 
successors in otfice shall be couHidercd by the party of the first part t\ full 
compensation for all their labors and services, done either by themselves 
or their minor children, without any further claim or demands whatever. 


Good and moral behavior, Huch as is enjoined by strict observance of the 
principles of Holy Writ, arc by both parties hereby promined to. bo 
observed; hence, it in clearly understood that all profane language, 
immoral words and acts, which nmy cause ofleuKe amongst the other mem- 
bers of this community, are not only wholly to be avoide<1, but, on the 
contrary, all are to endeavor to net good examples and to cherish general 
and mutual love. 


The object of this agreement being, furthermore, to preserve peace and 
unity, and as such can only be maintaiiu^d by a general equality among its 
roemberH, it is, therefore, sovevally understood and declared that no extra 
denuiuds nhall be made or allowed in resjiect to meat, drink, clothing, 
dwellingH, etc. (cases of Hickncss excepted), but hucIi, if any can be allowed 
to exiHt, may and Hliall be (dttained by individuals through means of their 
own and never out of the common fund. 

All moneys, which the said party of the first part either now ]>OHS6sse8 
or hcreaiti'r may receive into their possession, shall without delay bo 
deposited in the common fund of thiH society, for which a receipt, ]>aynblo 
on demand, is to be given; but upon the requcHt of the said party of tho 
firKt part, in order to procure extra necessaries, as the case nniy be, a part 
or the w'hole of said deposit shall be refunded to the owner. 


AnxiCLK 7. 

All maimer of misnnderBtandiDgH nnd diflferoDces eball be Hettled by 
way of arbitratiou and not otbcrwise ; that is, by a body of three or five 
persons, to be chosen by both parties, and their decision shall be binding 
on both parties. 


All rules and regalationa contained in the foregoing articles (if any there 
bo which are not plain onongh or are subjrrt to misapprehen.Hion) shall be 
BO nnderstood as never to be in opposition to but always in perfect nccord- 
ance with the nioralM, nsagcs, principles, and regulations of the members 
of the second class of the Separatists' Society of Zoar. 


These articles being fully and fairly understood, to their strict and 
faithful ]>erfonnance, both pai-ties bind themselves in the most solemn 
manner, jointly and severally, their children, heirs, executors, adminis- 
trators, and saeccssors in office by the penal sum of fifty dollars, current 
money of the United States of America. 

Akticle 10. 

If, in conseqnence of the foregoing, a penalty upon any one of the par- 
ties to this agreement shall be laid, then, in case of refusal or noncom- 
pliance, the party ho refusing may be prosecuted for the same before any 
magistrate or justice of the peace in the township, county, and State 
wherein the defendant may reside, and jndgmont shall be had agreeable 
to the laws of this State ; and said magistrate or justice of the peace shall 
forthwith proceed to collect sneh penalty and pay it over to the party 
who by law is entitled to the same. In testimony whereof, both parties 
have hereunto set their IiandN and seals this 14th day of October, in the 
year of our Lord 1833. 

AK ACT to incorporate tho Society of Soparaiistfl of Zoar, Timcarawas County. 

Sbc. 1. Be it enacted hij the general assembly of the State of OhiOf That 
Joseph M. Kimeler, John G. Grozinger, Jacob Syfang, Michael Fetters, 
Christopher Platz, John George Lepold, Solomon Sala, George Ackerman, 
Jacob Walz, Christian Hensler, .John Neff, Lewis Birk, Philip Sell, George 
Roof, GfHlfrey Kappel, Christian Weebel, Conrad Lebold, John C. Fetter, 
Jf»hn Miller, and John Fogel, and their associates be, and they arc hereby, 
created a body corporate and politic by the name of ''The Society of Sep- 
aratists of Zoar/' with perpetual succession, and by their corporate name 
m.iy contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be im- 
pleaded, defend and be defended in all courts of law and equity in this 
State an «1 elsewhere; may have a common seal, which they may break, 
alter, or renew at pleasure; shall bo capable of holding property, real, 
perB<mal, and mixed, either by purchase, gift, grant, devise, or legacy; 
and may sell, alien, dispose of, and convey the same; and the property 
and other concerns of the corporation shall be under the management and 
eootrol of the trustees appointed lor that purpose; and said corporation 


Bball bavo power to form a constitution and adopt by-laws for its govem- 
mcnt| to prescribe tbo number and title of its officers, and define their 
several powers and duties; to prescribe tbe manner in wbich members 
may be admitted and dismissed, and all other powers necessary for its 
corporate concerns: Provided, That said constitution, by-laws, rules, and 
regulations be consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United 
States and of this State: And provided also. That the clear annual income 
of Kaid society shall not exceed one thousand dollars. 

Skc. 2. That the persons named in the first section of this act, or any 
tbree of them, may call a meeting of said society, by giving ten days' 
notice thereof by advertisement sut up at the place of public worship in 
the village of Zoar, for the purpose of forming a constitution and adopt- 
ing by-laws for the government of said society, and of doing such other 
business as may be necessary' for the efficient management of said 

Skc. 3 That the members of said society, or such numbers of them as 
by such by-laws shall be necessary, shall meet annually on the second 
Tuesday of May, at the place of holding public worship, for the ]>urpose 
of electing officers of said corporation. 

Sec. 4. That any future legislature may amend or repeal this act, pro- 
vided such amendment or repeal shall not affect the title of any real or 
personal estaU), acquired or convoyed under its provisions, or divert the 
same to any other purpose than that originally intended. 

W. B. Hubbard, 
speaker of the House of Represeniatiren, 

Wm. DoiiKK'nr, 

Speaker of the Senate. 
FKBRrARV 6, 1832, 


AN ACT l4» ainemi tiio act entitloil "An act to iitcori>orale the Soclet}' of Se]iaratiiitM of 

Zoar in TiiBoarawaa Coimty. 

Sec. 1. lie it enacted by the ffcneral assembly of the State of Ohio, That 8u 
uuK-h of tbe second seotion of the act entitled ''An act to incor]>orate the 
Society of Separatints of Zour, Tuscarawas County,'' passed February 
sixth, one thousand eight liuiidred and thirty-two, as limits the clear 
annual income of said Kociety to one thousand dollars, be and the same ia 
hereby repealed ; and tlie society are hereby authorized to receive a clear 
annual income of anv huui not oxceedin;^ ten thousand dollars. 

Sec. 2. That if said society, for any cause, shall not elect officers on the 
day specified in said act, tben any five members of said society may order 
an election by giving at least ten days' notice by posting up printed or 
written notices of the time and place of holding such election in three of 
the most public places in the village of Zoar, one of which shall be at tbe 
place of holding public worship. 

Sec. 3. The fourth Hectiou of tli<* net, to which this is au amendment, 
be niid the same is hereby repealed. 

Sec. 4. This act shall take effect from and nfter its passage. . 

KLIA.S F. Drake, 

Speaker of the House of Jleprcsmtatiren. 

Seauurv Foki>, 

Speaker of the Senate. 
Fehrl'arv 21, 1846. 






By Jamks C cutis Ballagii. 

Three great questions arose in the national expansion of the 
United States from 1789 to 18G0, primarily economic in origin 
and bearing, that marked the diverging interests of two great 
sections and threatened to disrupt the Union. They were 
slavery, tariff, and public lands, in which latter was included 
the question of internal improvements. Each of these ques- 
tions passed from the economic to the political sphere for like 
causes, and in a manner strikingly analogous. They repre- 
sented, one might say, different but related phases of a great 
material opposition which, when expressed in politics, appeared 
in its most aggravated and irreconcilable form. 

Slavery, as tirst in time, and from the momentous ethical and 
social consequences involved, commanded so much larger a 
share of public attention that it alone remained, when the cli- 
max of sectionalism was reached, to figure in the popular mind 
as a direct issue in the war against secession. By its very 
conspicuousness it obscured the more indirect though i)owerful 
influence of the other two questions of tariff' and territory. 
Temi>orary victories for the South in the matter of tiiriflf leg- 
islation and in the distribution of the public lands and the 
proceeds of their sale tended to obliterate from general view 
these two factors as exciting causes of the impending dissolu- 
tion in the period just immediately preceding the war, while 
after it the question of lands, x^reviously involved in the terri- 
torial expansion of slavery, had lost all interest for the South. 
It fell with the institution of slavery. But two great problems 
left to the American and particularly the Southern people, the 
free negro and tariff reform, are legacies as well as causes of 
the old conditions, and have come to us in their present form 
as direct results of the war. As a war measure the slaves 
were freed, *&o as war measures were duties increased from the 



comparatively moderate Morrill tariff* of 1860-(il to uii average 
of 37.20 per cent in 1802 aud of 40.0i> per cent in 18C4, which 
have formed the basis of successive high tariffs to the Dingley 
bill. The failure of the Wells bill in 1867 was rightly taken by 
the party in power to mean that the war duties were to be not 
only retained, but advanced, and regardless of the temi)orary 
reduction of 1872 and 1883 when, they still averaged 38 |>er 
cent they increased with the McKinley tariff to a maximum of 
05 and 150 per cent on some articles. Both questions repre* 
sent thus the projection, not at first designed nor foreseen, of 
a warx>olicy into times of peace, and the subsequent conditions 
which have determined their present status are in a large 
measure the unanticipated, but almost inevitable results of 
material circumstances created during a period of warfare. 

Under somewhat similar circumstances, Jefferson ' and Mad*- 
son^ both, though most outspoken advocates of free- trade piii:- 
ciples, were forced by circumstances to forego a full realiza- 
tion of their wishes, and consented to acts as war necessitieti 
that wholly abrogated the logical expansion of their doctrine. 
The necessities of a Federal budget us clearly led J^ladison to 
introduce, for temporary relief, the resolution of April 8, 1789, 
that resulted in the revenue tariff laid by our first tariff act 
(Inly 4, 1780, as it led the Federal Congress to raise the com- 
paratively moderate protective duties of the Morrill tariff in 
1802 and 1804. But Madison was not the author of the clause 
enunciating the principle of protection in the preamble of the 
act of 1780. It was a concession ^ first suggested by Mr. Fitz- 
siiiimons^ of Pennsylvania, and yielded by Madison in the hope 
of harmony. To save the bill he went even further as a peace- 
maker between the contending interests, and admitted to the 
list of specific articles protected far more than he had ox iginally 
proposed or his section desired. In this way, and to catch the 
spring importations for an immediate and enlarged revenue, 
the measure in its final form was carried beyond the revenue 
proposition of 1783, on which it was based and which had been 
so zealously fathered by both Hamilton and Madison. 

So, too, Jefferson, imbued with physiocratic and mercantilist 
doctrines, and yet a close student of actual American economic 
and political conditions, saw little hope in 17S8 for the inime- 

> Sco Jntl'craon'fi Keimrt of 1793. Wa«bln|(t>on'fi Jt^flbmoD. VII, 037, 041, 047, 648. 

•' A iiiinU ul Cong., 1, 107, 1 i:t, 1 10 ; Madiaou's Work«, 1. 406, 480; III, 42 ; Amcr. St Paiiers, 
I, 'JO. KO. 

> Aniiiils of (!oii)(rt«tiM, I, 111, 112. 


diate growth of manufactares. Yet at a later day he was not 
UD willing to admit sach duties npou foreign articles as protected 
incipient commerce and incidentally enconraged domestic man- 
nfactares without laying a burden upon his favorite agricul- 
ture. Aside firom personal and political feeling engendered 
by rivalry, his opposition to Hamilton's report of November 4, 
1791,^ which favored a bounty system for manufactures, was 
consistent both with his belief in a revenue tariff, where free 
trade was impossible, and his clear i)erception that Hamilton's 
plan as a policy of government was premature; that with the 
sufficient revenue existing higher duties were unnecessary, and 
that money and other bounties were ultimately a tax paid by 
the many to foster the interests of a few. In this opinion con- 
temporaneous judgment bore him out by the iK)8tponement of 
the question raised to 1816, when actual conditions had them- 
selves so far changed as to make such a policy not only rational, 
but desirable to a large constituency in several parts of the 
Union, and Madison and Jefferson alike accepted in a modified 
degree the doctrine of protection. Hamilton's economic policy 
was in this respect as far in advance of his time as his general 
theory of government, and was based not ui>on American 
demand, but uppn British experience. 

Ideas of firee trade, tariff for revenue, and protective tariff 
were practically contemporaneous in our constitutional period. 
They were all freely expressed in the debates of 1789, but the 
serious application of one or the other as a ])ermanent policy 
was an evolution. The sentiment of the fathers then need 
scarcely be appealed to to supi)ort this doctrine or that. There 
was, it is true, serious difference of opinion and underlying 
localism, but the general tendency of feeling was patriotic and 
it sought harmony by following the road conceived to he marked 
out by American interests, domestic and foreign. Hamilton 
and his school were no less patriotic because they interpreted 
this interest in the light of foreign experience, but they were 
less wisely patriotic in confining their proiK)sed benefits to a 
class after a British model, and less practical in pushing a 
home policy that embraced but a single field and section of 
home interest, while it took no account of the pressing demands 
of American foreign relations. With Jefferson the outlook 
covered a wider range, the interests of the people who were a 

> Annala of Cong., 2fl Cong., 1791-1793, 971, 973, 1001. 1009-1014; Madison's Works. In 
1817 Madison considered it an bonor to belong to protective society. 

HIST 98 X5 


majority, as expressed in the three great forms of industry in 
the relative importance assigned them by past experience and 
exigencies present or in view. Supported by Washington and 
Madison, he was the first to fully outline what might now be 
called the American policy of reciprocity, at once an applica- 
tion of free trade and of protective principles. Jefferson'ii 
scheme was primarily a foreign iK)licy, but it embraced the 
actual domestic situation. Agriculture, a foreign market for 
its product, the creation of an independent carrying trade, and 
incidental protection to home products absorbed the larger 
present and probable interests of the country.^ Yet the propo- 
sitions embodied in these two great reports of Hamilton and 
Jefferson, the one of which had consumed almost and the 
other more than two years in preparation, failed of immediate 
adoption through a iK>litical opposition led by the antagonistic 

But it was the principles of Jefferson's report on commerce 
that were lirst put into operation and helped to create those 
conditions under which Hamilton*s policy might be feasible. 
This was due partly to popular, partly to influential backing, 
and partly to possible foreign events that had now become 
actual. As early as 1788 Washington, in a letter to Lafayette, 
forecast Jefferson's commercial policy of 1793 by predicting 
both reciprocity and retaliation in the form of closer reciprocal 
trade interests with France and of undoubted retaliatory meas- 
ures against Great Britain so soon as the x)ermanent govern- 
ment of the United States was established.^ Jefferson's mind 
had gone a step farther. He saw in fostered commerce both a 
resource of defense and a productive industry. As a carrier 
nation, the United States would control not only her own prod- 
ucts but those of belligerent foreigners, and at the same time 
form the nucleus of a merchant navy. Eetaliation, as has been 
ui\justly alleged, was not the keynote of Jefferson's policy. His 
report was a clear vindication of the doctrine of universal free 
trade, and as a step toward that for a national policy he was 
ready to see his Government take up the burden if joined by a 
single other power. Only when a foreign power refused to 
accept this programme, or to remove restrictions, was that 
other side of reciprocity, so-called retaliation, to be applied. 
Even here he viewed discrimination as but the necessary choice 

•Ford'ii Jefferson, v.. 27,310,510; Washingtont Jeffirsoii. Ill, 316, 317; Ford's Wash- 
ington. XII, 424-426. 
•Ford's Washington. XI, 254. 


between two evils — rained commerce and foreign ill-will — and 
of the evils he felt he chose the less. But the ultimate choice 
and responsibility rested not upon the United States, but upon 
the foreign Governments.* 

The peculiar and exaggerated application given to this com- 
mercial doctrine by the course of European events in the strug- 
gle between England and France was Jefferson's misfortune 
rather than his fault. The restrictive legislation to which he 
and his followers were driven by similar extreme measures in 
the commercial aggression of England and France, and the 
war of 1812, are not to be regarded so much as the legitimate 
fruit of his doctrine under ordinary conditions as the inevita- 
ble consequence of the inconspicuous position of his Govern- 
ment in the family of nations, and the necessity of its sharing 
in the legacy of one of the greatest of modern European wars. 
In fact, the results of these events were almost the exact con- 
trary of Jefferson's policy. The temporary encouragement to 
a neutral commerce did not preveut its subsequent decline and 
replacement by manufactures, stimulated and almost compelled 
by the high effective protection afforded by restrictive acts and 
by the war from 1812 to 1815, Yet, but for his policy, the 
destruction of American commerce and the absence of enlarged 
manufactures was certain. Both of these industries would 
have remained in the hands of Great Britain for some time to 
come; how long it is impossible to say. Nor is there any rea- 
son to suppose that reciprocity if peacefully applied with 
Europe in that day would have been less beneticial than has 
been claimed for reciprocity amoug American States in the 
present day, or between United States and Europe. 

So much is sufficient to show the economic background of 
early divisions in domestic politics and how far foreign politics 
and economics were influential in determining the form in 
which a practical application of free trade or protective prin- 
ciples was possible. Economic demand, whether it could be 
recognized or not, was tending toward sectionalizatiou, and 
neither the compromise spirit of Washington nor of Madison 
could eventually reconcile the theories of Hamilton and Jef- 
ferson, which were the offspring of such diverse interests and 
environment. Localism lay but half concealed under broad 
ideas of American patriotism. Sentiment but followed local- 
ized interests, actual or foreseen. To the peo])1e the real 

> AnoaU of Cong., II, 221. 222. 


Jefferson was the apostle of agricultare and an agricnltaral 
commerce, the real Hamilton the ax)ostle of indnstriallsm and 
municipal centers of trade. 

Divergent interests on the tariff, as on slavery, assumed 
importance as soon as the attempt was made to vest the Gen- 
eral Government with powers by which these interests were 
subjected to the doubtful control of Federal legislation. In 
the debates of 1789 on Madison's proposition for a Federal 
revenue raised by customs, a tendency to divide on sectional 
lines was clearly apparent, and with difficulty controlled even 
by his spirit of patriotic compromise. On the broad general 
departure from Madison's programme, involved in the ques- 
tion of protection to infant industries, raised by Pennsylvania, 
a division showed itself between the staple agricultural States 
and the mauufac^turing and commercial. The South, with the 
exception of a part of Maryland, which was controlled by the 
industrial interests of Baltimore, opposed the policy; while 
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania su])iK)rted the 
doctrine. Kew York and ^ew Jersey, as agricultural States 
with ])rospective commerce or manufactures, wished to tem- 
porize and postpone de^^ision. 

So, too, when the questions of what specific articles should 
be protected and what amount of protection should be given 
arose, a general sectional division was again apparent. Mary- 
land joined the South in a plea for low duties, but split with it 
upon taxing articles of which she was not a consumer. Virginia 
and Georgia opposed a tax on steel as a bounty paid by con- 
sumers to foster a Pennsylvania interest. The assertion was 
openly made by the Korth that the SoiTth was making a selfish 
fight against protection because it conceived that the Middle 
and Eastern States alone would be benefited, because they 
were better suited to a manufacturing ^ development. In the 
case of salt and in manufactures from iron the South, as the 
chief consumer, objected to a tax which it regarded as a bur- 
den on agriculture to encourage the interests of the North; 
while Massachusetts, Connecticut, and eastern Pennsylvania 
admitted the fact of the burden, but claimed it could be 
avoided if the South would divert its trade from Great Britain 
in its natural and proper direction to her northern neighbors. 
The spirit of compromise, however, was strong on account of 
the pressing needs of the budget, and Madison, as a calm and 

I AnnalB of Cong., I, III, 3, 121, 129. 133. 138, 139, 153. 156. 


jndir*iou8 umpire respected by both parties, had little difficulty 
ill securing concession from all sides. The general principle, 
then, on which this tariff was accepted was that it was for rev- 
enue with incidental and moderate protection, and that only 
such articles should be selected for special protection by spe- 
cific duties as were luxuries, and so would not involve a tax 
on the common people, and yet were of such general consump- 
tion as to yield a substantial revenue; and further, that une- 
qual burdens as to one article should be so adjusted as to 
another that an average tax should fall equitably upon all the 
States, and that concessions from one section should be met 
by like concessions from another^ 

The concession of a customs revenue to the (reneral Gov- 
ernment from the South was offset by the toning down of the 
protective claims of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Penn- 
sylvania on many of the articles till the duties were so low as 
to be virtually nonprotective. Yet subsequent dissatisfaction 
was not wholly allayed. When Hamilton, on January 14, 
1790, began his famous series of financial reports, advocating 
governmental paternalism and what was viewed as class legis- 
lation, sectional feeling on the old lines showed itself more 
forcibly. In the following February a number of the States, 
led by Virginia, expressed their opposition to the whole theory 
of raising revenue by imposts, because, they said, it operated 
unequally and to the disadvantage of those States which were 
consumers. Capitalism existed but to a small extent, yet it 
was mainly confined to the North, and Pennsylvania, Con- 
necticut, and Massachusetts were the only States that had 
given important encouragement to manufactures. Hamilton 
failed to recognize the compromise nature of the measures of 
1789, and in his self confidence overestimated his ability to 
direct an economic policy for the Government that opposed 
the wishes and violated the concessions of a large class of 
interests. His reports brought both people and leaders into 
political opposition, and the broaxl biisis of party division was, 
for the first time since the Constitution, laid down. Madison 
and Jefferson, who objected chiefiy to his third report, which 
was for a national bank, and to his report on manufactures, 
were convenient nuclei for concentrating this opposition.' 
From one point of view these economic policies were a means 

• Annala of Codx.. I, 164, 160, 170, 371. 373. 375. 370. 380. 381, 642, 643. 

*Annal« of Cong.. II, 1894-1002. 2032; Gibbs, A ilm in ist rations of Wasbington and 
Adams, I, 30. 40; Letters of Pbiueas ilond, Ainer. HihI. Assoc. 1806. 1. 651-654. 



to an end — monarchical aristocracy and repablican democracy; 
from another, they were an end in themselves, and strict or 
loose construction, state rights and nationalism, repablican 
and federal parties were the means by which these and other 
material rights were to be gained and guaranteed.^ Thus is 
explained the tendency of party lines to follow sectional inter- 
ests, to which great leaders were themselves largely bat an 

But not during this era of party strife, nor yet during the 
teni])orary supremacies of Federalism and of liepublicaniHm, 
was the economic solidarity of North or South a fact. New 
Hampshire and Pennsylvania on one side and Maryland and 
South Carolina on the other liuctuated according to their 
economic interest. Of these South Carolina was the most 
consistent in following individual as opposed to sectional 
interests. With sin enormous State debt, she had from the 
beginning joined the forces of Hamilton in favor of assump- 
tion, and in 1704 she supported the Federalists in their pro- 
British policy to defeat the commercial scheme of Madison 
and Jefferson, on the ground that she was a consuming State 
and her products souglit a British market.^ So in 181G,when 
Hamilton's economic policy, demanded now by large actual 
interests,^ again ca?ne forward in the shape of a plea for con- 
tinuance of the i^rotective policy. South Carolina, by reason 
of the deman<ls of her new product, cotton, still found her 
interests consistent with party loyalty and could afford to dis- 
regard the general interests of the non-manufacturing South. 

Here again, as in 1781), a war debt and deficient revenues, as 
necessities to be met, supported the claim of protected inter- 
ests. Some favored the proposed tariff because they saw it 
was necessary to (consent to a limited protection in order to 
get an adequate revenue bill through the House. Calhoun, 
and the part of the cotton South he represented, accepted pro- 
tection in the belief that it would extend the field of consump- 
tion for the raw products of the far South. A duty of 25 per 
cent ad valorem on cottons, it was hoped, would so check the 
importation of India cotton as to create a home market for the 
Southern product and enhance its value by enlarged demand.^ 

>Ford'H WnHhington, XI, 415 noto; Schouler, United Staten, I, 132-142. 

* Annals of Cong ,11,180,183,506,507. France was her rival in the production of Indigo, 
bat in Britain it wan admitted free. 

* Annals of Con«;., 14th Cuiig. Ist neHs., 960-007. 

^HC.AdamM* Johns Uopkinn nnivcr.4it3' Studies, Vol. II, 20. 30; Annals of Cong. 1816, 
Int sesa. (See Calhoun's argument for the exigencies of another war, and the debt also.) 


Kew England was divided in her sentiment, according as Iier 
commercial or mannfactaring interests were involved. Her 
shipping interests stood with the general Soath — ^the carrier of 
whose exports she was — against the tariff, as the limitation of 
trade involved in a high tax on cottons and woolens was a 
direct blow to her commerce. Boston merchants petitioned 
against the act, and Webster was induced to demand a rednc- 
tion to 20 per cent.' Bat Ward, of Massachnsetts, who repre- 
sented the mannfactaring interests, demanded their permanent 
support by high tariffs, and accused Webster of not favoring 
the doctrine of protection, but wishing merely to offer a tem- 
porary bounty to manufacturers. Clay took the same position, 
and first brought the West, as represented by Kentucky, into 
line with the Middle States as favoring protection. Clay based 
his argpiment on patriotism, the home-market theory advanced 
by Hamilton; but it seems that Kentucky had growing manu- 
facturing establishments worked by slave labor, and her intQr- 
ests were involved.* 

The tariff of 1816 then was still not definitely sectional, but 
it showed an increasing sectional tendency. Like all the early 
tariffs, until after the thirties, it was pressed by the Middle 
States of the North and by the West in the interest chiefly of 
manufacturers as opposed to commerce and agriculture. Some 
Southern members came out strongly against it on the ground 
that it favored " the manufacturers of the North, of the North 
and Middle States, more than those of the South." The locali- 
zation of manufactures, which Madison in 1789 could not fore- 
see, was beginning to make itself felt. Robertson of Louisi- 
ana declared that the tariff was partial, and did not protect 
sugar in proportion to cotton and other manufactures. Boss 
of Maryland attacked it with the physiocratic argument of 
the South, that protection to the manufacturer was contrary 
to the true policy of the Government, which ought to encour- 
age agriculture as the basis of wealth,^ reverting here to the 
plea against Hamilton in 1791. But the chief opponent of the 
bill was John Randolph of Virginia. He was supported by 
Telfair of Georgia and Wright of Maryland with the stock 
argument of the South. He tried to have the bill postponed 
indefinitely, and, when he could not accomplish this, to kill it 
when it came up for final passage on the 8th of April, 1816. 

> Annals of Cong. 1st sess., 1816, 1187. 

»Ih., 1271. 

«Ib., 408, 407, 1272, 1273 ; 2d Cong., 1791-1793, 972. 


He spoke for three hoars against the bill and the policy of pro- 
tecting manufactures at all, and especially against high tariffs 
as bounties to a few and a tax on the comnmuity. He was 
followed in the same strain by Telfair and Wright. ^ The bill 
passed the Hoase by a vote of 88 to 54, but it is most signifi- 
cant of the attitude of the South that 40 of the 54 opposition 
votes were given by Southern members.^ 

By 1820, as far as the part of the South represented by Cal- 
houn was concerned, a distinct change of sentiment had taken 
place. The tariff of 1816 had not extended the market for 
Southern products to the great extent that washoped, and the 
tariff now demanded was clearly in the interest of Pennsylva- 
nia, the Middle North, and the West, the grain and manufac- 
turing interests, and was an indirect tax upon the staple States 
through their imports. The duty particularly upon rum, 
brandies, iron, and molasses, it was argued, was paid by the 
Southern consumer. Consequently the South almost unani- 
mously opposed the tariff bill introduced by Mr. Baldwin of 
Pennsylvania. Only four Southern members out of fifty- 
eight who voted supported the bill.^ So striking was the 
sectional vote of the South on this bill that public sentiment 
viewed it as next in importance to the vote on the Missouri 
Compromise of the same year. The connection of slavery 
with free trade was not mentioned in the debate, but the com- 
mon interest and action of the South on both questions was 
so clear as to leave no doubt in the minds of any as to her 
future policy. The connection was not that one depended upon 
the other, but that both were demanded by a system of expan- 
sive agriculture. The Northern votes against the tariff now 
all came from New England. Several on the tariff' of 1816 
had come from the Middle States of the North and several 
from the West.^ These represented chiefly the carrying inter- 
est of New England still identified with the South. As a whole, 
however. New England voted for the tariff 19 to 14, and Mas- 
sachusetts 10 to 6. 

Another ten years, and the overshadowing growth of manu- 
factures as compared with commerce brought all of the New 

>NileaReg.,10; 110,111. 

s Annalg of Cong., Ist aea. 1816; 372, 373, 1351, 1352. 

■Nilea 18; 169,176; Tennesaee, MisHlHaippi, Alabama, and Loniaiana vere nnanlroona 
against it, and Virginia, Knrtli Carolina, South Carolina, and Maryland lost only 1 vote 
each from their indnatrial eectiona. 

* Six out of 14 ; Pennsylvania gave 2, Nev York 3, Kentucky 1. 


England States into line with the protective policy, bat tbe 
South took a position of opposition on tlie tariff of 1820 which 
it consistently maintained in the period before the war and 
has not yet abandoned. The theory was that as staple States 
they mast rely chiefly upon a foreign market for demand and 
exchange. As buyers they paid the tax which protected the 
manufacturers of the North. Their surplus was wholly an 
export surplus,, while that of the agricultural North and West 
found a home market stimulated by growing manufactures. 
The South now abandoned any hope that may have remained 
in 1810 of competing with the North in either commerce or 
manufactures or of becoming anything but an agricaltural 
section. This is shown by the urgent demands from Virginia 
and North Carolina, after the bill passed the House for engross- 
ment and a third reading, for the creation of a committee of 
Congress on agriculture to protect their interests, as the com- 
mittees on commerce and manufactures protected the inter- 
ests of the North.' 

From 1820 to 1830, when sectional opposition became fully 
crystallized between North and South, both the tariff and 
slavery tended to pass from the sphere of economics more dis- 
tinctly to that of politics, aud^ aided by the irritation and 
intolerance provoked by the dogmas of nullification and aboli- 
tion proclaimed during the next few years of political ferment, 
the transition was effected. Protection grew steadily in dis- 
favor at the South as it grew in favor in New England. The 
increase of duties in the bill of 1824 and the so-called <^ abomi- 
nations '^ of the tariff of 1828 met with the most determined 
resistance from the South. The Solid South had become a 
fai't.* The actual reductions of 1832, which brought the tariff 
in principle back to the regular methods and lower duties of the 
bill of 1824, were thought to have been throwil as a sop to 
Southern members to quell the opposition. It had, however, 
just the opposite effect. The South saw that it was designed 
to i>erpetuate the protective policy by getting its agreement 
to a comparatively moderate tariff*. It prepared at once for 
resistance. Calhoun, who had advocated on the same basis as 
Webster the slight protection of the act of 1816, had since 
1820 believed in the sectional working of the tariff. He was 
in 1828 the undoubted leader of the South. His opposition 

■NUea Keg. 1820; 169, 170, 178, 180; Annals of Congress, 1820, 1st seas., vol.2, 1063,2139, 
* Tausig says tbe South '* practically without exception opposcHl them " (pp. 75, 98). 


led Soatli Carolina to a Dullification of tlie acts of 1828 and 
1832, and gave an opportunity for his famous elaboration of the 
State-rights theory. Nullification was not secession, as Cal- 
houn said, but it was both the logical and historical precursor 
of secession.' Calhoun's, not Jefferson's nor Madison's, ex- 
pression of the doctrine of State rights dominated the political 
theory of the South from this time forth to the war, and was 
the theoretical basis of secession. 

In this way, then, the tai iff' is as directly connected with the 
war as slavery. Both were expressions, in difi'erent forms, of 
a real economic divergence. Both were causes that made 
State sovereignty the paramount issue of the war. The issue 
of protective tariff lost much of its political importance through 
the determined stand of South Carolina,' which so far gained 
her object as to abrogate the act of 1832 and force the lower 
duties of the compromise of 1833. From that day up to the 
act of 1857 the general tendency was to realize the wishes of 
the South in approaching a free-trade ideal. Excepting the 
four years, 1842-1 84G, when the Whigs were in power and 
restored high tariffs, there was a constant tendency to reduc- 
tion, and the act of 1857, in force until 18G1, was the nearest 
approach the country has had since 1789 to a revenue bill 
based on the free-trade principles of the Democratic party. 
Consequently tariff itself had lost much of its importance as a 
sectional issue until it w^as unhappily revived by the Morrill 
tariff of 18r>0-(;i. 

This measure was introduced into the House on the 12th of 
March, passed over the almost solid opposition vote of the 
South May 10, 18G0, and at once sent up to the Senate. This 
was more than seven months before the movement for secession 
passed its first crisis at the South. From its first admission 
to debate on the 15th of June till the close of the session, June 
25, and the return of members to their constituencies, the atti- 
tude of the Senate was viewed as hostile to the wishes of the 
South. No probability of a compromise by a substitution of 
the tariff' of 184C for that of 1857, offered by the South, seemed 
likely to be accepted, and both in the House and in the Senate 
during the Thirty-sixth Congress the sectional and harmful 
tendency of tlie Morrill bill was freely discussed by Southern 
members. Barksdale,of Mississippi, and Houston, of Alabama, 

I South Carolina said iu atiernpts to enforce the nullified laws woold drive her oat 
of the Union and force her to become a sepiirat<) government. 


did all they could to delay and indefinitely postpone tlie meas- 
nre in the House. It was declared by Hunter, of Virginia, and 
Toombs, of Georgia, and other Southern Senators to overthrow 
the free-trade principles adopted in the free list of the tariffs 
of 1857 and 1S4G, and by the substitution of specific for ad 
valorem duties to be a tax upon the consumption of the South 
for the benefit of the manufacturer of the North. It went back 
to the House with over 100 Senate amendments and was passed 
by a strict party vote. 

It was this principle of taxation without representation, so 
claimed by the South, that was presented to Europe as the 
chief cause of secession, and gave to Mr. Seward one of the 
most difficult arguments to be met in his foreign diplomacy. 
The free-trade principles of the South were vindicated by the 
practical proposition, both to foreign powers and to the United 
States Government, from the Confederacy to put them into 
actu al operation. No tariff was to be levied except on merchan- 
dise, and this was to be scaled down to the necesary demands 
of revenue.' The South declared that she would for years to 
come remain agricultural, and that she would exchange on 
the freest terms for the manufactures of Europe and the North. 

Since the war the position of the South on the tariff has 
been controlled largely by conditions similar to those before 
the compromise. It is the agricultural interest that has 
consistently maintained the demand for tariff reduction, and 
as industrialism advances the tendency to break permanently 
the solid South increases. Here, however, the continuance of 
negro labor, on its social and political as well as on its eco- 
nomic side, presents a conservative and retarding influence, 
preserving a dominant agriculture and a solidarity of political 

The land question as an expression of sectional divergence 
waa^ developed by the same economic and political interests 
that controlled the co-related questions of slavery and the tariff. 
Its connection with slavery was vital. The economic success, 
and hence the life of that institution, was bound up in the 
]>08sibility of land limitation or in restrictive methods of ex- 
pansion. With the tariff it was a means by which sectional 

* CongTMsioDal Globe, Ist sess. and 2d sess., 1860-61, 1&4, 328, 329, 333, 444, 536, 1115, 1116, 
1128. 1432, 1982, 2054, 2056, 2062, 3000, 3010, 3017. 3024, 3032. 3187-3189, 3100, 3191, 8194, 3196 ; Dip- 
lomatic Cor. 0. S. Am VoL I, p. 120 ; Toombs to Yancey and Manu, March 16, 1861 ; to Mason, 
September 23, 1861; Hunter to commissionertf, September 23, 1861, and February 8. 1862; 
Seward to Adams. 1861; Parliamentary Debates, vol. 168. July, 1862. 


legislation might regulate iudustry to the disadvantage of the 
I)eculiar system of expansive Southern agriculture. As this 
agriculture was promoted by an approach to free-trade ideals 
and by the lateral expansion of the field of slave labor, so it 
was enhanced by the solidarity of agricultural interests assured 
by the extension of the system of the Southern Atlantic States 
into the territory of the Southwest. A superabundant reve- 
nue, raised either by high tariffs or by sales of public lands, 
was but an invitation to a selfish squabble for an unequal 
division of the spoils, to be decided in the interest of the 
section which had a predominant representation in Congress. 
Solidarity of interest and equality of representation alone 
would force the hand of the General iJovernment to distribute 
without discrimination its burdens and privileges between the 
sections. Such was the broad economic theory that lay behind 
the action of Southern politicians and gave force to their resist- 
ance of Government assumption of such State rights as involved 
material interests.' 

In the acquisition of territory, the creation and settlement 
of the public domain, and in the distribution of the surplus 
raised by the sale of public lands the economic demands of the 
sections, now about to be enlarged by respective additions from 
the West, opened a field for political influence to shape condi- 
tions that would make the projection of sectionalism inevi- 
table. In the creation of the first public domain both Virginia 
and Connecticut made reservations that opened the possibility 
of the introduction of opposing agricultural systems into the 
Northwest. New Englanders, however, joined with Jefferson, 
of Virginia, in the exclusion of the discordant element of slav- 
ery by the sixth article of the ordinance of 1787, leaving the 
system of the North in virtual ascendancy, since neither the 
labor system of the South, nor its crops, nor its overflow of 
white and black population, would thenceforth have equal 
opportunity for comi>etition in the new region. The eventual 
eflect that this would have upon the profitableness of the 
Southern system within its own area by congestion and, more 
p^irticularly, the serious disturbance it might and eventually 
did produce upon the balance of power in Congress, were not 
wholly unanticipated by the (contemporary South. This is 

> No resiatance waa made by tlio South to the Iooao construction theory by which Jeffer- 
son parchaHe<l Louisiana, but tlie opposition came from the section that had previoasly 
supported this very doctrine. 



shown by the fact that the proposition when it came in its 
original form from Jefferson in 1784 was voted down by the 
South. Tiie compromise spirit of 1787 and the ascendancy of 
Jefferson's ideas in 1805 and 1807 (when Indiana Territory, 
comprising all this area, with the exception of Ohio, petitioned 
almost nnanimoasly for a suspension of the clause for its own 
economic benefit, sufferiug as it was from small settlement by 
the South'), but more especially the promisiug future of the 
South in the Southwest and in the new Louisiana purchase, 
may suffice to explain why it submitted so easily to the exclu- 
sion of the labor factor of its system from the ^Northwest. 

Bat another factor, less apparent though equally subtle and 
far reaching in effecting the exclusion of the South, was the 
modes of settlement proposed and adopted iii dealing with the 
public domain. As early as 1785 the North proposed to estab- 
lish the policy of selling the lands by what was called a '^dean 
riddance.'' Land was to be sold only as settlement advanced, 
and new tracts were not to be opened until tbe old were sold. 
This was a practical bar both to scattered settlement and to 
engrossment and retarded population and, probably for these 
reasons the Virginia delegates, Madison and Glasgow, led the 
South in opposing the principle and had it struck out. Rapid 
western extension, vacant lands, and tbe engrossment were the 
features that harmonized with the land system of the South and 
favored its extension. A victory over continued engrossment 
had been won by the North in that provision of the ordinance of 
1787 which divided intestate estates equally amongst heirs in 
the New England fashion.^ The so-called rectan gular system of 
distributiou of public lands, evolved gradually by law from 
1785 to 1814, proved a still stronger influence in favor of the 
general Northern method of t^ettlement. The system intro- 
duced was a striking analogue of Roman methods of dealing 
with public lauds and presented the same contrasts and 
advantages to the typical Southern system that that of Rome 
did to the systems of the Kelts and Saxons. North and south 
. meridians G miles apart were cut by parallels east and west 
at a like distance, making townships G miles square, which 
were subdivided into sections of a mile square, or G40 acres, 
and these in turn into half and quarter sections, and finally, in 

1 Jeff. Davin'o Confederate GovemnieDt, I, 8, U. 
* Benton. Thirty Years, 1, 132. 


later years, into eighths and sixteenths of sections.^ Thas 
was reproduced the checkerboard appearance and convenient 
access made possible by Eoman boundaries in striking contrast 
with the irregular patchwork and distorted lines of communi- 
cation common to the American colonies. 

The intent of the system was twofold : to prevent irregular- 
ity of settlement, the great bane of State methods particularly 
in the South, and the consequent confusion of titles by con- 
flicting boundaries. This latter it did prevent, but it failed to 
secure regularity so long as a credit system prevailed and loca- 
tion within the surveyed area was allowed to follow the quality 
of the land. The principle of survey before purchase, early 
adopted by the land office, was a check upon indiscriminate 
location and subsequent engrossment of contiguous areas, so 
common in the practice of the Southern States, but engross- 
ment by first purchase or subpurchase was not specifically 
liscouraged, except by high prices, until 1820. The large accu- 
mulations by companies and individuals to be used specula- 
tively under the credit system, and its retarding effect upon 
settlement and revenue proceeds, soon led to the encourage- 
ment of small actual settlement and the process of subdivision 
of sections, which put a small acreage within the purchase 
limit of the poor farmer. This began iu 179G and was con- 
tinued in 1800, 1804, and 1820, when the cash basis and reduc- 
tion in price from $2 to $1.25 per acre in lots as small as 80 
acres, distinctly fostered actual settlement on small holdings, 
** with a deed in fee from the Government."^ 

From this time forward the laws as applying both to the 
Northwest and to the Southwest were felt to have a distinct 

'The system was gradually developed, townships composed of 640-acre lots were 
employed by the board of treasury till 1785, half sections in 1800, but in 1796 the sub- 
stance of tho system was outlined in the act of May 18. Lands at this time were sold in 
blocks, townships, eighth sections, Hections, and half sectionn, and iu 1804 in quarter sec- 
tions, and in 1820 in half quarter-sections. The influence of Roman practice through Hol- 
land is traced by Mr. Austin Scott to explain the idea. De Witt hays Jeflferson originate*! 
it in his proposition for rectangular states lUO miles square. By others it is assigned to 
the plans of Ponn in Pennsylvania, and the scctionH show some analogy in acreage to 
North Carolina grunts. Fractional sections formed by navigable rivers or Indian bound- 
ary lines were the only exceptions. Tub. Land Commission, 1880, 170, 197, 196, 200, 201, 205, 

* Public Land Commission, Ex. Doc., 3<l sens., 46th Cong., 1880-81, Vol. SS, 197, 198, 201. 
202, 205. Three Hales were made under speeiul laws. The Ohio company, under name of 
Winthrop Sargent and Manasseb Cutler, bought, iu 1787, 822,900 acres in Ohio on the 
Scioto and Ohio rivers, at the low price of $1 an acre, with less than a third cash, and iu 
1791 John C. Symmes bought 248,500 acn*^ near Cincinnati for $165,943, and Pennsylvania 
bought 202,187 in Erie County, Pa., at tho same price, 66} cents, and paid this in part by 
military warrants. 



sectional bearing. The SoatU claimed that the North had 
attempted to establish hard terms of sale by fixing an arbi- 
trary and high minimum for all qualities of land and by refus- 
ing donations to settlers. The object was on the one hand to 
prevent speculation and insure actual small settlement, and on 
the other to make the lands a source of revenue for the Gov- 
ernment, which might be ex[>ended on internal improvements, 
of which the North and West, by their Congressional majority, 
would reap the greater benefit. Hayne, of South Carolina, in 
1830, even went to the extent of accusing Webster and New 
England of a deal with the West after 1823, on internal im- 
provements, in order to eapture the Western votes for the 

When the Foot resolution of December 29, 1829, which was 
apparently a harmless inquiry as to what public land remained 
unsold, and whether the old system should be extended or 
limited, was introduced it was construed as an attack upon 
the South.^ The South had consistently stood for gratuitous 
grants, and when these were refused, for liberal terms, propos- 
ing gradual reductions from $1.25 to 30 cents an acre. Hayne 
even advocated the old loose system of the Southern colonies 
for distribution, fee simple grants for nominal payments, and 
advanced the liberal policy of Spain, France, and Canada in 
support of his doctrines.^ The contention of the South was 
that tliis would encourage actual and rapid settlement, but 
what was more important, it was certain to extend the main 
features of the Southern system to new territory at the same 
time that it tended to reduce Government revenue and its pos- 
sible sectional distribution in internal improvements.^ 

Tariff and sale of public lands were the important sources 
of national income. From the tariff between 1825-1827 a net 
revenae averaging yearly (21,618,103 was returned, and the 
yearly Bales of public lands was sometliing like $1,500,000 
more, while the expenses of the Government, military, naval, 
and civil, were but $13,000,000 a year, and $1,000,000 of this 
went into internal improvements.^ With the extinction of the 
national debt contemplated from past excess of appropriation 
over the stated sinking fund of $10,000,000, and with expenses 

I Benton, Thirty Tears. 1, 28U. 


> Benton, Abridgement of Debates of Congres* X, 418 et. sq. 

* View of United SUtes, 506, 507, 535, 537, 539. 


reduced to an anticipated (9,000,000, while the revenues from 
the public lands and duties increased, Congress in 1829 might 
well include in its ^' cardinal measures of policy" <' great and 
lasting works of public improvement, in tlie survey of roads, 
examination for the course of canals, and labors for the removal 
of the obstructions of rivers and harbors, first commenced by 
the act of Congress of 30th April, 1824." » By this act a board 
of military and civil engineers was authorized to make surveys 
and estimates for such roads and canals as were thought by 
the President to be of national importance for mail, military, 
or commercial purposes. This board of internal improvements 
was continually employed, under this and subsequent acts, by 
the application of States or individuals, in devising plans for 
roads, national and local, canals, harbor and river improve- 
ments, piers, and matters of no national imx)ortance at all, 
which only by an exaggerated interpretation came within the 
language of the law. Up to January 1, 18<30, estimates or sur- 
veys for some 142 different works, 00 of which were in the 
Northern States, 44 in the West, and 38 in the South had been 
submitted. The South was apparently behind, not only in 
number, but in the expenditures for purely local purposes; 
consequently the ([uestiou of internal improvements and of 
public lands upon which it depended tended more strongly to 
pass into sectional politics.^ Another link which joined the 
South to the West, intercommunication, was threatened. 

The constitutional right of the Federal Government to exer- 
cise this broad power of improvement must consequently be 
denied, and now for the first time in the debates on Foot^s 
resolution in 1830 was 0(*casiou offere'd for the full elaboration 
of the theoretical divergence of Nortli and South in constitu- 
tional interpretation. Thus both Ilayne and W^ebster sought 
to establish in the highest law of the land a bulwark for the 
integrity of sectional interests. But in the question of West- 
ern lands and extension of settlement, as in slavery and the 
tariff, the bitterness of sectional jealousy was calmed for the 
time by mutual concession. Here, too, the struggle resulted in 
a compromise, the preemption right,'' which sacrificed the point 
of Government revenue for the principle of actual and re- 
stricted settlement. Calhoun antagonized Clay's preemption 
bill, saying that it encouraged speculation and nonsettlement, 
and professed that he was the friend of the small holder, which 

1 Unitea Statc8. 535-542. * View of United States, 489-505. > Public Land Comm.. 214. 


was trae so far as rapid settlement of the Southwest tended to 
increase Southern representation in Congress, but nobody took 
him seriously. He advocated retrocession of the public lands 
to the States in order, he said, merely to get the question out 
of Congress, where it consumed at least a third of the whole 
time of debate, and to relieve the Government of the owner- 
ship and administration of public lands. His interest seemed 
deeper than this. Ketrocession to the majority meant that 
the lands could, regardless of contract, be distributed in the 
Southern method, and that Federal revenues alone would suf- 
fer. Yet Calhoun was willing to concede to the Government 
65 per cent of the gross sales in order that no deficiencies 
might arise to favor an enlargement in the tariff. For this 
reason, too, he opposed the Whig programme of distribution of 
surplus to the States, for here the North, which had contri- 
buted little or nothing, would share equally if not out of pro- 
portion to the South, from whom gratuitous titles to a great 
body of the land had come, and whose it rightly was if sepa- 
rate States and not the nation were to be considered. To 
nationalize such a portion of the revenue as would prevent 
either a large surplus or a deficiency, prevented the tax dis- 
crimination against the South involved in a protective tariff, 
at the same time that it diverted the career of local internal 
improvements into projects of national import, like the Navy. 
The whole plea was, however, in fact distinctly sectional on 
both sides, and it was in this light that Calhoun in 1841 viewed 
the public lands as, next to the tariff and currency, the most 
dangerous and difficult of public questions. Retrocession was 
a practical bonus of something between 13 and 22^ per cent of 
gross proceeds to four States of the South and five States 
of the West. It was proposed as another tie to bind the inter- 
ests of the South and West, and to counteract those greater 
impulses of Northern immigration and development.^ 

The sectional issue came to its logical conclusion in 1859 in 
the homestead movement which Seward advocated against the 
South and her demand for Cuba. This movement was first 
started by a radical paper in 1833 as a special measure against 
land monopoly. Consequently it easily grew into an anti- 
slavery measure when taken up by the Freesoilers and by 
Seward in Congress, and when finally passed in 1860 the North 

> Calhoaii*8 speechea, 403-405, 416, 417, 435-437, 465. Bnt the old South, not immediately 
benefited, preferred to oompromiae with Clay to secure a low tariff by accepting distribution. 

HIST 98 16 


bad scored another victory in the (]ue8tion of land as related 
both to slavery and the tariftV 

In these final debates of a united Congress was clearly dis- 
closed the vital separation of sectional interests that bound 
these economic <juestions together and made them, singly or 
united, the themes and chief occasion of partisan harangue. 
The minority opposition to the Morrill tariff in the House wiui 
practically the same that had struggled against the homestead 
bill. Branch, of North Carolina, who tried hard to kill both 
bills as sectional, said, when Morrill reported his measure, 
March 12, ISHO, tlint the passage of the homestead bill, which 
had just been accomplished, was 'Mni(|uity enough for one 
day." Both were consistently opjwsed by the Southern con- 
tingent, and more than once the effect of such legislation on 
the disturbed state of the Union was pointed out. Of the G5 
votes against the homestead bill, 53 came spe<'ifically ftom the 
South, and of the remainder 8 came from Kentucky, 3 from 
Missouri, and 1 from Indiana; and 41 of these votes were iden- 
tical with those cast against the Morrill bill when passed, May 
11, 1860, by a vote of 105 to (54. Not a Northern vote was cast 
against the homestead and but two (from New York) against the 
tariff bill. The South viewed the homestead bill, regardless of 
denial by its sponsors, as a revenue measure as well as a blow 
at the extension of Southern interests into the West.* The 
economic line of division between North and South had been 
effectively curried to the Mississippi and, in a few regions, even 
beyond. Hut here the South had long been losing ground and 
hope, and consistent with her historic doctrines of expansion 
had since 184L looked far afield to Cuba, a region of identical 
e(M)nomic interest, to support her system and succor her wan- 
ing power in Congress.'^ With the admission of California as a 
free State in 1850, which disturbed the balance and forecast 
disunion, she turned more definitely to this program. 

Upon the broad question of territorial expansion itself, 
owing to its bearing upon sectional interests, an issue had for 
many years been raised. In the public domain ceded by 
res])ective States to the General (lovernment in the Northwest 
and Southwest the doctrine of expansion was not involved; 
nothing was added to the actual limits of the United States, 

' Seward, IV, 60. 

' CongroAsional (tlobu, IhI nohs. 36tli ('onj;., Muy to J not*, 1800, 8167-9; March U* April, 
1860, 1115. 1110, 1982. 
^Coug.Globv, 2a 8CH8. 30th (.'uu|;., ]it. 1, 485, uot«, 


territory had but changed maateivS, and, beyoud the effect of 
different methods of dealing with this land, no question was 
raised between North and South, however jealous had been the 
attitude of the large and small States in its creation. But with 
the aci|ui$itiou of recognized foreign territory in the Louisiana 
and Florida purchases, in the annexation of Texas, in the 
additions by the treaty of Guadalupe- Hidalgo, and by the 
Gadsden purchase, and in the demand for Cuba, regardless of 
a certain analogy in charter rights and foreign title of much of 
this as to the former land, first acquired from France and then 
from Great Britain, a new principle was felt to be involved. 
The agent was now a Government bound by the limits of 
a definite common constitution, whose authority might be 
invoked to safeguard diverse sectional interests. 

It is curious to see in the present day the almost complete 
change of relation, as far as sections are still concerned, to 
the question of territorial expansion, governed now as it was 
in the early days largely by economic interest, and dealing 
with the constitution now again as an organ of convenience. 
The si>ecial application of the doctrine as at present proposed 
throws the economic system of the South into a field of com- 
)>etitiou, while to that of the North extension would prove 
almost the complete complement. Consequently ])arties have 
shifted ground and argument. In former days expansion was 
conceived as the guaranty of Southern interests as it threat- 
ened those of the North. The continuance of slavery as a 
profitable form of labor within the old limits depended upon 
an extension of the area for the absorption of its surplus. 
The same was true of expansive Southern products, and par- 
ticularly of cotton, whose future seemed bound up in slavery. 
The control of new regions, made certain by the extension of 
this system, would confer that predominance in the councils 
of the nation without which the South believed its interests to 
be unsafe. 

Besides these facts, inimicable to Northern sentiment and 
interest, the struggle to maintain equality or predominance in 
new regions was a drain, not of a natural or general labor sur- 
plus of the North, but of the agricultural surplus ujion which 
industrialism was dependent for profit and extension. It 
might even go further and threaten, by scarce and costly labor, 
the existence of the productive industries, cutting off all expan- 
sion of the intensive margin of labor, while immigration was 


drained to new fields of agricultural exploitation. Such were 
some of the arguments, advanced from time to time, that 
brought the sections into opposition on the general question of 
expansion. The slow or rapid, regular or irregular, modes of 
distributing the public land, the high or low prices to retard 
or encourage settlement, and the long struggle after 1820 for 
the exclusion or admission of a certain class of settlers, which 
finally passed into all the bitterness of the territorial c|uestion, 
were but the specific means used to defeat or extend sectional 
benefits gained by the victories of territorial acquisition. On 
the general point so far the South had consistently won, even 
at the risk of secession by the opposition, but the fruits of vic- 
tory were denied her in most of the region west of the Missis- 
sippi, and lessened even on the east, by successive defeats on 
specific m<'des of settlement. Cuba thus presented a forlorn 
hope and the last point of attack, which, if successful, might 
tend to restore the balance. But here there were several fea- 
tures, new to the former question of expansion, to complicate 
the action of both sides — the greater danger of foreign entangle- 
ment, the need of a navy to protect an insular i^ossession, and 
the domestic question of the addition of actual slave territory. 

The history of the Cuban question goes back almost to the 
days of the Louisiana purchase. By 1809 and 181 both Jeffer- 
son and Madison were in favor of this further application of 
expansion, which was now to set the limit of insular acquisi- 
tion, on the theory that it should not go where the need of a 
navy for its possession was apparent; and Cuba to them was 
as much a part of the mainland as Florida, and with it formed 
the mouth of the Mississippi. By 1822-1826 Galhonn, Ban- 
dolph, and Brent of Louisiana, more definitely favored annex- 
ation, or the guaranty of Cuba to Spain, by which alone the 
cause of slavery would be saved, while Adams and Clay pre- 
ferred independence, which peacefully freed the slaves, to 
either, yet joined the South in opposing foreign interference 
by European or American states that would raise a danger of 
servile insurrection and its spread to the Southern States. It 
was chiefly Southern influence that agitated the question of 
purchase from 1841-1848 and equipped the filibustering expe- 
ditions of 1850 and 1851, in the face of Whig opposition to the 
whole general programme of annexation or independence, 
except without slavery. 

By 1853 the acquisition of Cuba had become a specific part 


of the theory of expausion proposed by the dominant South- 
ern Democracy, already victorious in the Mexican treaty and 
the Gadsden purchase. It resulted in the '< Osteud Manifesto" 
of 1854 and in the presentation by the South to the Senate, in 
1859, of a definite plan for the annexation of Cuba by purchase. 
This measure of Slidell's was met by ridicule from the North, 
and by the jocose proposition of Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, 
to divert the proposed appropriation of $^,000,000 for the 
annexation of Canada, which he would guarantee could be done 
within ninety days. So strong was the Northern opi>osition 
to the bill, led by Mr. Seward, of New York, that by the adop- 
tion of filibustering methods, endangering an extra session, 
the minority were able to force the withdrawal of the measure, 
though Slidell threatened to reintroduce it on the iirst day of 
the next session. With secession, and the necessity of foreign 
alliances, the Cuban policy of the South completely changed, 
the Confederacy protesting to Spain that although it had for- 
merly desired this territory for a balance of power, the need of 
it was now gone, and she had no further wish than to see it 
guaranteed to Spain. By the result of the war as to slavery 
Cuba became a matter of indifference to the South as it rose in 
importance to the North from the interests of trade and labor 
involved by the course of insurrection, leading finally to the 
theory of intervention,' and its positive exercise in the war 
with Spain. 

It was the younger daughters of the Union, the cotton South, 
those who came to her either from State or national domain, 
that were first to follow the lead of South Carolina in putting 
into efi'ect that extreme application of the theory of State rights, 
secession, as the last resort to vindicate those practical rights 
common to the planting States, the most immediate of which 
was the demand for unlimited territory for cotton. Mississippi 
quickly followed, on the 9th of January, the withdrawal of 
South Carolina, December 20, 18(i0, and on the 10th of Janu- 
ary, 1861, she was joined by Florida, and on the 11th by Ala- 
bama at the dictation of the Senatorial coterie from the cotton 
States. Their representatives in Congress, however, lingere<l 
on in the hope of some final adjustment through the various 
measures of compromise suggested from several directions, and 

I Amer. Hist. Abmm., 1S97, Callahan, 107. 198, 204-297. 210, 211 ; Latent 220-222, 228-233, 
236, 240, 250,252, 253, 274, etc. ; Congreaaional Globe, 2d seas.. 185^-69, 227, 588. 540, 541, 904, 

009. laas. 


particularly from the borderlaud of the West. The one of these 
that fouud most favor from the Soath was that of Mr. Critten- 
den, of Kentucky, who proposed a division of territory between 
the sections by a restoration of the Missouri Gomprounse, ex- 
tending the line of 30^30' as a boundary to the eastern bonier 
of California. This gave the North over 900,000 and the South 
285,000 square miles, a ratio of more than three to one in 
favor of the North ; yet notwithstanding the probable perpe- 
tuity of the social and landed Northern interests, and despite 
the fact that it yielded froni the South rights that might have 
been claimed under the decision of the Supreme Court, it 
found no decided favor from the North, as it involved pro- 
gressive concessions whose ultimate e£fect was not certain, 
and it was rejected by the solid opposition of the Northern 
members of the Senatorial peace committee of thirteen with 
the help of Toombs and Davis from the cotton South. 

In 178.3 the territory of the States north of Mason and Dix- 
on's line comprised but an actual 164,000 s<|ua)e miles against 
the claim of those south of it to some 600,000, but by the north- 
west cession of Virginia the proportion was change<l in favor 
of the North by the difference between 425,000 and 386,000 
square miles; and the acquisitions of Louisiana, Florida, 
Oregon, Texas, and the Mexican lands had been so dealt with 
that the proposed compromise would leave the North in the 
possession of twice the area of the South, 2,200,000 to less 
than 1,000,000 square miles. The Crittenden compromise 
asked but for the recognition of fact as far as slavery was 
concerned, as it existed to the south of the proposed line and 
was excluded from the region north. But the question in- 
volved far more than human freedom or even of slave labor 
and free labor. It was the whole system of which they were a 
part and which determined the economic and political affilia- 
tions that controlled the interests of the old sections. 

At best its adoption may but have tided over a crisis and 
postponed the question till further territorial expansion. But 
its rejection by the committee of thirteen, December, 1860, and 
its substitution, after the opposition of Toombs and Davis was 
withdrawn, and the people from various sections, together 
with the President, had expressed approval, by a resolution 
of Mr. Clark, of New Ilampshjre, on January 16, condemning 
secession and asserting the self sufficiency of the Constitution 
to deal with existing exigencies only irritated the Southerners 


by its implied threat of coercion aud showed them the folly of 
looking for eflective compromise satisfactory to both sections. 
Consequently the Senators of the seceded States withdrew 
from Congress on the 21st of January. Almost immediately 
afterwards Pennsylvania, who claimed to have suffered most 
from the long Southern domination which had consistently 
attempted to restrict her manufacturing interests, held out 
the olive branch of i)eace by proposing to resurrect the Ken- 
tucky resolution she bad so lately helped to defeat. But it 
came too late for either North or South, though supported by 
the eloquent pleas of both Pennsylvania Senators and the 
memorials of her citizens. It was viewed as but a scheme to 
stem the tide of secession which it had been predicted would 
overwhelm at least fifteen States. Its further discussion and 
defeat only served to increase irritation and precipitate re- 
sults. Georgia had withdrawn from the Union on January 19 
and her members from the House on the 23d; Louisiana 
seceded on the 26th following, and her Senators withdrew 
February 4, and Texas on February 5. The chief occasion of 
their action, they stated, was not Lincoln, nor his party, how- 
ever distasteful their general principles were to them, and 
particularly the special programme supposed to be demanded 
by the party platform and the sentiment of the President- 
elect regarding slavery, but it was the constant and ^^unhal- 
lowed pursuit of sectional aggrandizement'' and territorial 
inequality that destroyed *'the equilibrium of power between 
the sections.'' It was on these grounds alsci that the Senators 
of seven of the Southern States, Virginia, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Florida, joined 
on August 14, 1850, in a protest to the Senate on the principles 
of the admission of California which denied ^^the right of the 
slaveholding States to a common enjoyment of all the terri- 
tory of the United States or to a fair division of that territory 
between the slaveholding and non slaveholdiug States of the 
Union," warning the Senate that if the policy were "persisted 
in" it would "lead to the dissolution of that Confederacy in 
which the slaveholding States have never sought more than 
equality, and in which they will not be content to remain with 
less." The four States driven iuto secession by the doctrine 
of coercion, Arkansas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennes- 
see, likewise affirmed in Congress the identity of interest and 
common cause of complaint that would lead them to this 


course if extreme measures were used against their sister 
States, and the rejection of the Crittenden proposition, even 
after its modification in favor of the North as to territory by 
the Virginia Peace Convention of February 4-15, by the solid 
opposition of the party of the North had no small influence 
in preparing their people for tbis important stepJ 

Having shown the connection of developing American eco- 
nomics and politics that gives the general conditions under 
which the evolution of the land systems of the Northwest and 
Southwest took place and the broad results effected, we are 
better able to trace the specific modes of tbis process and the 
relation of local results to the original systems formed in the 
colonial North and South. It was these results that made a 
de facto separation of interests between sections of the new 
West, and increased the tendency to identify them with the 
already separated interests of the old States, and this became 
a basal factor in our subsecjnent political history. The ques- 
tion of how far the land systems of the North and South were 
extended in the new region is involved in the history of its 
acquisition, and the conversion of most of it into public land, 
and its settlement either under the laws regulating the lands 
of the United States or under the land laws and prai'tices of 
the States or nations to which the territory originally belonged. 

The first public domain of the United States was the crea- 
tion of the States by voluntary cession. To this was adde<l by 
the Federal Government a greater expanse of territory by 
annexation, either by purchase or treaty concluding war or 
diplomacy with foreign powers, and by purchase from for- 
eigners, State, or citizens. The first cession came from New 
York in 1781 of its title to the entire country southward from 
the source of tlie Great Lakes across the Ohio Valley to the 
Cumberlands based on treaty with the Indians. Of this, only 
some 202,187 acres embraced in Krie County, Pa., and after- 
wards sold to that State by the Government, was made an 
effectual grant, after the relinquishment of Massachusetts's 
claim. From 1703 to 1783 the title to practically all of the 
trans- Alleghany territory east of the Mississippi, north of the 
thirty-first parallel, lay de jure with Great Britain, regardless 
of colony conquest or original charter grants to the colonies. 
Under her regime and that of the French preceding it, as well 

> Coogreasional Globe, 2d sosn. 3Gth Cong., 1860-61, Ft. I, 112-114, 264-266, 379. 405, 409, 
443, 84U.845 Dote, 486, 489, 490, 494, 495. 513. Buohannn's Administration, 184, 187-189, 144^ 


under colony claims, land ^auts and settlement had begun 
to take form. The voluntary cessions of the titles of Virginia 
in 1784, of Massachusetts in 1785, and Connecticut in 1786, 
based on charter, conquest, or settlement, cleared the title of 
the Federal Government to 169,959,680 acres of public land in 
the region northwest of the Ohio, east of the Mississippi, and 
south of the Great Lakes, commonly called the Northwest 
Territory.* Some 4,300,000 acres of this, in what afterwards 
became the State of Ohio, was reserved both as to soil and 
jurisdiction by Connecticut, in what was known as her Western 
Eeserve and Fire Lands, until 1800, when a jurisdictional ces- 
sion only of this was made to the United States in order to 
quiet title and give Connecticut grantees the warrant of a 
Federal Government patent. Virginia, too, had imposed con- 
ditions upon her cession; that the United States should con- 
firm the titles and possessions of the French, Canadian, and 
other villagers, citizens of Virginia, and should satisfy the land 
bounty claims of Gen. George Rogers Clark and his#8oldiers 
to the amount of 150,000 acres, located in the present State of 
Indiana, and also the unsatisfied claims of her Revolutionary 
veterans, which were eventually provided for in a tract of 
4,204,800 acres between the Scioto and Little Miami rivers 
and called the Virginia Military Lands. Of this, 76,735.41 
acres unappropriated in 1871, was ceded to the State of Ohio 
by the Government and sold by her for the benefit of technical 
education, so that the total practical reservation made by 
Virginia was but slightly less than that of Connecticut^ being 
4^80,513 acres.' 

The cessions creating what was afterwards known as the 
Southwest Territory began with that of South Carolina in 1787 
of a strip of land 14 miles wide, forming the northern portions 
of the present States of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, and 
containing 3,136,000 acres. It was followed in 1 798 by the North 
Carolina cession of 29,184,000 acres comprised in the area of 
Tennessee, and almost completely covered by her reservations. 

In 1802 Georgia ceded 56,689,920 acres, partly claimed by 
the United States under the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, 
l>etween her western boundary and the Mississippi, which 
added to the South Carolina cession the remainder of the pres- 
ent States of Mississippi and Alabama above the thirty-first 

I Pablic Land CommissioD. pta. 1 and 4 ; 10, 11, 12, 63, 84. 
> lb., 11, 68. 60, 72, 75, 82, 85. 


parallel, the boundary line of the Florida purchase. Her res- 
ervation was for a money payment of $1,200,000 from the land 
sales, and 500,000 acres, or the proceeds of their sale, to sat- 
isfy existing claims. By the Loaisiana purchase from France 
in 1803 a partial title was gained to the territory lying between 
the Mississippi <and Perdido rivers south of the thirty-first par- 
allel, and the purchase of East and West Florida in 1819 finally 
extinguished the Spanish title to any portion of this territory, 
and added, in parts of the present States of Louisiana, Mis- 
sissippi, and Alabama, and in Florida, 37,931,520 acres more 
to the land of the South and Southwest.^ 

The national domain west of the Mississippi was acquired 
also by treaty. State cession, and conquest, but besides through 
peaceable annexation by joint resolution of Congress, and most 
of all by purchase. Not all of thi^, however, was public land 
of the nation. The 175,587,840 acres comprised in the area of 
the State of Texas were in no way subject to the distribution 
of the Federal Government. The territory added to the pub- 
lic domain by the Louisiana purchase and treaty with France 
of 1803 was more than three times the area of the original 
thirteen colonies, and contained in the area claimed, 1,182,752 
square miles, or 756,061,280 acres. To this the treaty of Guada- 
lupe Hidalgo with Mexico in 1848 added 334,443,520 acres; the 
Texas purchase or cession, 65,130,880; the Oadsden purchase 
and treaty with Mexico in 1853, some 20,142,400 acres more, 
and the purchase of Alaska from Russia, 369,529,600.^ The 
total area of public land thus embraced west of the Missis- 
sippi was 1,551,207,680 acres as compared with the 169,959,080 
acres of the Northwest and the 126,938,440 acres of the South- 
west Territories east of that river, giving a grand total of 
1,852,104,800, in which the West had over five times as much 
as the East and the North something over a third more than the 
South. At the time of the Louisiana purchase this iuequahty 
was even more marked as respected two of the sections, the 
South having a share but little over half that of the North, 
and the two together about a third that of the West. 

Not all of this vast region, however, was subject to the oi>era- 
tion of the laws of the United States afifecting the distribution 
of public lauds. Much had been granted as private land under 
the regulations of France, Spain, Groat Britain, and Mexico, 
the claims to most of which were acknowledged by the Fed- 

> Public Land CommistiioD, ptA. 1 ami 4; 12, 83, 88, 108-120. 
«Ib., 120-124, 126-135, 145. 


eral Governmeut, as by agreement, and, as far as XK>ssible, pro- 
tected. These, however, were inconspicuoas in comparison 
with the total amount distributed by the United States. A 
more important exception was the grants made by the colonies 
and States, to guarantee which the reservations in their ces- 
sions had been made. The large extent of these grants was 
especially important in the Southwest, where they were suffi- 
ciently great, together with the major portion of French, Span- 
ish, and British grant-s, to practically count'Oract the motive 
and usual result of the system of distribution employed by 
the Federal Government. 

Most of the Northwest Territory was regularly distributed 
according to the rectangular system of the laud office, only 
some 8,580,513 acres out of a total of 169,959,680 — that is, less 
than 5 per cent — were distributed under State or colonial laws, 
and of this considerably more than half was so treated as to 
produce the same general result as the Federal land laws. 
Connecticut, in her Western Reserve and Fire Lands, employed 
the New England method of settlement, which was further 
encouraged to spread by the French and Canadian villagers of 
the Kakaskias, St. Vincents, and other places. The loose and 
irregular methods of survey and settlement under the Virginia 
laws in her smaller reserve so confused titles that a long course 
of litigation was involved, which retarded settlement for a 
quarter of a century, and for fifty years, up to 1871, the ques- 
tion was a frequent subject of Congressional legislation. Little 
opportunity then was offered for the extension of the Southern 
land system into the Northwest, except by the possibility of 
accumulations through the influence of speculation under the 
credit regime, and by exceptional Congressional grants to 
companies and individuals. 

Besides the enormous grants to the Ohio Company and to 
Symmes, aggregating 1,071,440 acres, several tracts of from 
1,800 to over 20,000 acres were given as donations for special 
reasons. These, however, were offset by correspondingly small 
grants to Canadian refugees and foreign settlers for forming 
towns. Almost 13,000,000 acres, up to 1820, were thrown open 
tospecnlation in the Northwest as compared with some 5,000,000 
in the Southwest, but these were reduced by nearly a third 
through reversions and relinquishment, and this speculation 
was wholly insignificant as compared with the great transac- 
tions in Southwestern lands after 1830. Owing to the effect of 
the numerous relief acts after 1809 the evil influence of specu- 
lation was largely counterafrted in the Northwest, and a large 


immber of small holdiugs were retaiDed by the sacrifice of 
useless landsJ 

But there were several other spcicific infiuences that tended 
to shut the plantation oat of the region north of the Ohio and 
to introduce the Northern farm: (1) Northern immigration, 
which was accustomed to small farming methods in the home 
State or in Europe, absorbed most of the territory. Only the 
southernmost portions offered an inviting field for the settler 
from the South. (2) Northern food products, and chiefly grain 
crops were suited to the soil and climate, which, with distance 
from market, tended to transfer to the Northwest the agricultural 
methods of Pennsylvania and New York as well as their prod- 
ucts. (3) The cost of labor and its general scarcity made free 
labor especially unsuited to expansive agriculture and encour- 
aged the creation of an independent small-holding yeomanry. 
(4) The laws concerning descent of lands and conveyancing 
were remarkably simple and facilitated by easy and direct 
modes the interchange of estates. The second section of the 
ordinance of 1787 abolished the whole doctrine of feudal ten- 
ures for the Northwest more eft'ectually than the statute 12 
Charles II. did for England. It viewed land as allodial. In- 
testate estates descended to the heirs in equal parts, saving 
only widow's dower. The easiest modes of devise and of 
transfer int-er vivos were put in operation. Further, the Statute 
of Uses, with its complexities and evil effects on conveyancing, 
was never fully adopted. Entailments and perpetuties were 
barred by statute. The technicalities of real actions were 
avoided and lands were recovered by simple ejectment.^ Con- 
sequently, neither the opportunity for engrossment of lands nor 
the possibility of its support existed in the law and practice of 
this region, and these were also passed on to the great West, 

South of the Ohio conditions were very diflferent. More 
than one-third of the Southwestern lands added to national 
territory were not embraced in the actual public domain. Of 
the nominal 151,049,640 acres of this territory but 96,049,921 
were actual, as the areas of Kentucky and Tennessee, with the 
reserves of Georgia and Florida, aggregating 54,999,719, were 
either the public lands of States or private lands of individ- 
uals. Of the area west of the Mississippi, exclusive of Alaska, 
nearly one- sixth — some 198,000,000 acres, almost all of which 

1 Publio Land Com., pts. 1 and 4 ; 69, 82, 203. 209-11. 



lay in the portions of country attached to the South — was not 
included within the national public land nor subject to its 
methods of disposal. In both these regions together, if we 
consider only the additions made specifically to the South, we 
find the State and private lands covered some 223,000,000 
acres, while the actual public lands of the United States 
comprised only 190,527,741 acres, an area of over 21,000,000 
iicres less. The influence of these facts upon the resulting 
hind system was great. It meant that these non-public lands 
were disposed of by Spanish, French, British, Mexican, or 
State grants, and that their methods of settlement, in general 
irregular and expansive, were in direct conflict with the sys- 
tem and intent of the rules of the United States Land Office,' 
while they conformed to the system in vogue in the Southern 

Practically none of the 29,184,000 acres of the State of Ten- 
nessee, the North Carolina cession, were distributed by the 
General Land Office. This area was already covered by the 
reservation of North Carolina for claims already granted. 
The early settlement of Tennessee then took place under the 
same laws that were in force in North Carolina. A State 
land office was established in 1777 in what was known as 
Washington County, extending to the ^lississippi and com- 
prising the whole territory ceded, and lands were distributed 
under the North Carolina law and practice. The plan of 640- 
acre grants was adopted only to be evaded in practice. Enor- 
mous individual grants were obtained through the office by 
fraudulent methods, chiefly by aggregations or fictitious en- 
tries. In this way John Sevier located 46,000 acres, while he 
had 165 location papers for grants of 640 acres, which, if 
allowed, would have given him 105,600 acres. As early as 
1772 the Wantauga settlers had gotten large claims, which 
were subsequently annulled. One of these, Joseph Brown, 
bought half of the present Hawkins County from the Indians 
for 10 shillings. Some settlers held undergrants from Vir- 
ginia, others from Lord Granville, and many by squatter's 
right and possession, w^hich latter were confirmed in 640-acre 
grants. When the law of Tennessee became operative it modi- 
fied but very slightly that of North Carolina, so that in the 
main the land system of North Carolina was reproduced. In 

I Public Land ComniisDioii, 105, 376, 381. :tP2, 407, 409, 420. 421, 425, 485. 


east Tennessee there were a number of farms of limited area, 
and west of the Gumberlands there were some large plan- 
tations encouraged by slavery imported with the settlers. 
Jackson's plantation, near Nashville, was from 7,000 to 8,000 

Another large area, that of the State of Kentucky, com- 
prising 24,115,200 acres, was only nominally in the public do- 
main, and was settled under colony and State laws likewise. 
This portion of the ixissessions of the State of Virginia was 
not included in its cession to the Government. As Virginia 
territory it was first included in Fiucastle County, and in 1776 
was erected as the separate county of Kentucky. The early 
settlers were mainly Virginians and North Carolinians. From 
1750 to 1760 the early explorers, Walker, Gist, and Boone, 
made little headway against the hostile Indians, and not until 
after 1770 were any important attempts made at settlement. 
Virginia, from the first, extended the methods of her land office 
to the Kentucky region. Indiscriminate location was allowed 
on any unoccupied land. Surveys were made not before but 
after location, and they included practically as much as the 
settler asked for. They were marked by the same irregular 
and primitive boundaries employed in Virginia, which tended 
both to confusion of titles and to engrossment. Grants made 
by immigration companies had the same effect. 

Shortly after the victory over the Indians at Point Pleasant, 
settlers began to pour in, and the land agents of the Transyl- 
vania Company, a North Carolina venture, at Boonesboro 
granted entry certificates to as much as 560,000 acres of land. 
The Transylvania Company had purchased from the Cherakees 
a title to about half of Kentm^ky, and, regardless of the claims 
of Virginia, petitioned Congress to erect them into a separate 
State. This plan was defeated by Patrick Henry and Jeffer- 
son, the Virginia delegates, the purchase was declared illegal 
by both Virginia and North Carolina, and the colony rapidly 
declined. In 1778 Virginia annulled all acts of the company 
except the grants to actual settlers, and finally extinguished 
its claim by giving the company 200,000 acres of land to deal 
witli as it had with its former land. 

The form of early settlement was the palisaded village, due 
to the fact that the settlement was made in the face of hostile 
Indians, but this did not permanently affect the land system. 
The grants continued to be given on the Virginia plan, and, as 
soon as pacification permitted, they were entered upon and 


turned into extensive farms. When Kentucky laws became 
operative this tendency was further increased. They practi- 
cally gave lands away as bounties. Land was sold at 30 cents 
an acre or $30 per 100 acres. Immigrants were freely allowed 
from 100 to 200 acres for settlement. The county courts were 
vested with power to make land grants, and prices were re* 
duced. Everyone over 18 years of age might have a right to 
400 acres, at $20 per 100 acres. Those who were in debt for 
land were given as much time as they wished to settle with 
the State. Land jobbing was general, and the large importa 
tions of slaves indicate the general tendency to engrossment. 
The slave population rose from 12,000 in 1790, when it was 
one-sixth of the total population, to 43,000 in 1800, and to 
80,000 in 1810. 

A third Southwestern State which was not affected by the 
public-land laws was Texas, with its 175,887,840 acres. Its 
cession of 65,130,880 acres lay wholly without the State limit's. 
The expansive land system of Texas would scarcely need com- 
ment except to trace its interesting origin. The Spaniards iirst 
settled in small villages, but, as they were not farming but 
cattle-raising communities, large grants of land were necessary, 
and these tended to pass into individual ownership. When 
individual grants began, about 1826, it took but ten years to 
parcel oat the most of Texas between 13 large grants. During 
this time there was a large immigration of Southerners, encour- 
aged by the exceptional benefits offered by the Spanish colo- 
nization laws. They allowed a league of land (4,604 acres) to 
every settler who was the head of a family, and one-third of a 
league (1,476 acres) to a single man, who, when he got mar- 
ried, could claim the other two- thirds of the league. In 1836, 
under the Republic, a law was passed establishing local offices 
and dividing land grants into labors of 175 acres eiich, to be 
sold at j^lO a labor. The limit of purchase was 275 labors^ so 
that an individual might acquire as much as 48,125 acres. 
Immigrants were allowed in fee a league and a labor (4,779 
acres), and laige bounties were offered to soldiers. It is easy to 
see how, in this way, Texan homes came to be 10, 20, 30, or even 
40 miles apart, and every man held in possession 100 times as 
much as he wanted for cultivation. Even so late as 1850 the 
average farm acreage in Texas was 942 acres.^ The result of 
this system of grants was like that of the older Southern 

1 Young, 254; Parkor, 185. 189, 224 ; 6oage«22; Stiff. 160; Censua 1850. 


States — Donimprovemeut, vacancy, and land speculation. In 
1848 in Texas 512,614 acres only were in cultivation out of an 
assessed acreage of 38,000,000. 

Besides these States, which were not affected at all by the 
public-land system, there was a large body of land in two 
States actually a part of the public domain which was dis- 
tributed by other methods than those of the United States 
Land Office applying to agricultural grants. In the territory ' 
added to the South by the South Carolina and Georgia cessions 
and by the Louisiana and Florida purchases, comprising the 
States of Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi, Louisiana, 
Arkansas, and Missouri, over 48 per cent as late as 1880 
remained undistributed, vacant, or absorbed in other than the 
regular agricultural and bounty grants. Grants aggregating 
88,441,788 acres were made to States or cori)orations for pub- 
lic improvements, especially of transportation, and for mili- 
tary and saline reservations, and education, or were absorbed 
in swamp lands. Of the remaining 113,825,200 acj*es some 
9,846,612 were already absorbed or claimed under colonial 
grants of Great Britain, France, and Spain. This leaves, 
exclusive of the Georgia Reservation, only 103,478,588 acres, 
barely half of the total area, that were actually regularly dis- 
tributed by the Land Office in all this territory; and of this 
13,427,109 acres were homesteads claimed after 1863. The 
land system of these States was then probably more influ- 
enced by the old grants than by the new. The conditions of 
the purchases of Louisiana and Florida guaranteed all the 
rights of private property to the old settlers and all claims 
previously granted. The United States had to make these 
good or adjudge the claims deficient. These grants were very 
numerous. They lay along the Mississippi River all the way 
from Vincennes to the Gulf of Mexico, were thickly scattered 
over Louisiana, along the Gulf in Mississippi and Alabama, 
and all over east and west Florida. There was a large number 
of them in Missouri, and some in Arkansas. The actual occu- 
pation of the French and Spanish under such grants had set 
the first type of development for the land system. 

These grants, unlike those of the British and French in the 
Northwest Territory, were usually large.' Large French 

I The Indian reservation or Indian Territory coniprisetl 41,100,015 acren for a population 
of 76,585. 

'Public Land Comm., 15, 180. 218, 221, 222, 22&-230, 236, 237, *i!50-252, 255.287,365,870.371, 


iodigo, tobacco, and rico plautations, sapportiug a system of 
tenantry, were to be foand around Mobile Bay and on the 
streams entering into it as early as 1772. In Louisiana and 
Missouri tliere were two chief forms of grants — urban and rural. 
These urban grants consisted of inlots, outlets, and common 
lauds, very much like the Pennsylvania plan, but on a broader 
basis. The earliest settlers, for social reasons and protection, 
seemed to favor settling together. The rural grants varied 
from several hundred to thousands of acres, the league square, 
consisting of 7,056 arpentSj not being unusual. Many of the 
claims were not occupied and thousands of acres were still 
unsettled in Louisiana as late as 1880. In that year 784 claims 
were still on file in the Land Office awaiting confirmation, and 
they show the expansive grants given. They were grants of 
from 1 to 3,000 acres. On the advent of staple products urban 
lots tended to be absorbed in these rural grants. Another 
fact that made for engrossment was the use made of land 
scrip. Land scrip was issued for unsatisfied claims by failure 
to locate, overlapping, or conflict with other claims. There 
were over one and one-quarter million of acres of this in the 
South — nearly one-half the total land scrip issued. This was 
used speculatively and, as in Texas, to locate large bodies of 
the public land.' 

it is very difficult to arrive at the actual areas and the con- 
ditions of improvement represented in these Southwestern 
plantations. The census has no statistics until 1850 giving 
actual farm acreage. But the assumption that the tendency 
of land grants and the influence of extensive crops — like cot- 
ton, rice, tobacco, and sugar — was sufficient to reproduce the 
methods of the old South is supported by the statements of 
foreign and native travelers pointing to the general and early 
prevalence of a large plantation system, and by the testimony 
of agricultural reports contained in Government publications 
and contemporary literature. We have definite statistics bear- 
ing upon the sugar plantations of Louisiana between the years 
1827-1830, which show that plantations ranged from 800 to 
2,000 and 3,000 acres, the average being about 1,200 acres 
planted. In general, less than one-half the cultivatable area 
was under cultivation, while of the total area embraced 
scarcely one-sixth was cultivated. These facts well illustrate 
some characteristic features of the Southern land system — the 

> p. L. Cm 289, 290. The acreaKe was 1, 316,046 iu a tot4tl of 2,893,034.44. 

HIST 98 17 


impossibility of complete improvement, isolation, and non-set- 
tlement. These plantations lay along the rivers and bayous 
with from 6 to 58 acres frontage on the water. A notable fact 
is the effect of crops on the size of the plantation. Sngar and 
cotton constantly tended to increase acreage, jnst as tobacco, 
rice, and indigo had done in the old lands. It was found in 
practical cultivation that a sugar plantation of less than l,50(i 
acres was operated at a comparative loss in net profit. In 
Arkansas the cotton fields consisted of from 300 to 400 acres, 
which meant that plantations contained at least 1,000 to 1,500 
acres, as under the system less than one-third was cultivated. 
The public-land system then seems to have left no permanent 
effect in this portion of the great Southwest. 

The only remaining portions of Southern territory to be 
considered are those parts of the States of Mississippi and 
Alabama embraced in the South Carolina and Georgia cessions, 
containing 59,825,920 acres. Here the public laud laws went 
more fully into effect than anywhere else in the South. Only 
500,000 acres, reserved by Georgia for claims already granted, 
were exempt from their application. The Yazoo claims of 
1789-1795, embracing 35,000,000 acres of this territory, held by 
the Virginia, Tennessee, and South Carolina Yazoo companies 
and by several other companies, though revoked by the State, 
were finally purchased by the Government for $3,000,000, so 
that a clear title was obtained to all the public lands in Missis- 
sippi and Alabama with the full right to distribute them in 
the regular method. 

The tendency of the i)ublic laud laws was in general, where 
not defeated by speculation, toward small grants. It cost in 
the early days $331 to establish a preliminary claim to a sec- 
tion of land and ultimately $960 more, making $1,291 for the 
full title, including fees. After the i)ricc was reduced to $1.25 
an acre the total cost was still some $900. Under the credit 
system this led not to settlement so much as to speculation. 
The best lands were absorbed in tracts by land sharks and 
the tendency to small hohlings was partly counteracted. Fic- 
titious and fraudulent methods were also used by speculators 
to keep out bona fide settlers. The lands were bid up to enor- 
mous figures, like 8160 an acre, beyond the limit of true pur- 
chasers, and when thrown on the hands of the Government by the 
speculator were bought in at a small ivdvance on the minimum 
price of the land office. But s(iuatters took up the i>oorer lands. 


After the price was reduced to $1.25 ou the cash basis aud 

the preemption acts between 1830 and 1841 were passed for 

the relief of these squatters, allowing the ac^iuisitiou of qaarter, 

half-quarter, and quarter-quarter sections, of 160, 80, aud 40 

acres, bona fide small settlers became a large class. Under the 

act of 1841 occupiers were limited to 480 acres; that is, they 

could only enjoy a preemption right if they had 320 acres or 

As far as the intent of the public land grants in Mississippi 

and Alabama went, then, they were opposed to the Southern 
system; but there were several influences that counteracted 
this opposition and made the system finally conform to the 
plantation idea of the South: (1) The influence of the older 
planters in the Mobile and Gulf regions, which was exerted 
along the lines of the rivers upward into the country, set the 
type of profitable products and methods. The large planta- 
tions of the French around Mobile and the Gulf outlets to the 
Mississippi country, whence trade got its impetus and control, 
must have afiected largely in the earliest days the immigrants 
in the interior, who depended on this region for exchange. 
Thus along the Alabama Biver in central and southern Ala- 
bama there were cotton plantations, each with its own landing 
for shipping to Mobile, like those of the Mississippi and Yazoo 
rivers, which shipped to New Orleans. (2) The chief body of 
American immigration, and the earliest immigration, infiEtct, to 
this country, was Southern and slaveholding. From 1764>1768 
large bodies of immigrants went out from Xorth Carolina, 
South Carolina, and Georgia up the bayous to the Mississippi 
country, with liberal grants from Great Britain. Mississippi 
began to fill in 1800 and in 1810 had 40,000 inhabitants. Ala- 
bama settlement came later, but in 1820 her population was 
144,000, as compared with the 75,000 of Mississippi. The 
immigration of the slaveholding cotton planters began early 
from the cotton States. They absorbed all the best lands and 
squeezed out the poor small holders with grain crops to the 
Piedmont and highland regions. (3) The abuse of the public 
land laws in practice by speculation, encouraged by inflated cur- 
rency and a general movement of expansion, became rampant 
at the South after 1835. when the rise in the price of cotton 
showed the use the land might be put to and the demand that 
would come from the agriculturalist. While only $8,000,000 
worth of public lands were sold from 1818 to 1820, sales began to 


pick up in 1830, $5,000,000 worth being sold that year, and in 
1835 $11,000,000, and in 1836 $24,000,000. Of total sales 
between 1830-1840, 20,000,000 acres were sold in the South. 
The demand for cotton seems to have had the most direct rela- 
tion to this as a cause. Cotton production and the sale of 
public lauds increased together with almost like ratio. Cotton 
began to rise in price in 1830, passing from 6 to 8 and 10 cents, 
and in 1833 to llj cents and in 1835 it went from 14 to 20 
cents, and up to 1837 it was still kept between 8 and 15 cents. 
It was in view of this fact that the speculator bought land. 
He could buy it at $1.25 an acre and sell at $6.44, which, 
though nearly $1 higher than land in the old Southern States, 
was more valuable on account of its fertility and would induce 
purchase. There was a rush on all sides and by all classes 
for land in large tracts. The actual planters seem to have 
bought most of their lands from speculators. The new States 
of the South borrowed $32,000,000 of foreign capital between 
1830 and 1837 to invest in internal improvements. State banks 
were established with this and a still larger amount — 
$48,000,000— of private capital. These banks lent out money 
at high rates of interest to purchasers of plantations, chiefly 
poor sons of old planters who had 20 or 30 slaves given them 
on which to start. They mortgaged their slaves and planta- 
tions for payment and frequently those of their fathers also. 
Everything was upon a basis of futures and crop mortgages. 
This is the way Mississippi and Alabama were settled between 
the years 1830 and 1840. The population of Alabama was 
nearly doubled and that of Mississippi nearly trebled. The 
contemporary proportional increase of slaves shows the char- 
acter of settlement. From 453,000 in the new Southwest in 
1830 they rose to 845,000 in 1840*, while in the old slave States 
the increase was reduced to 5 per cent. In Alabama the 
negroes had increased from 118,000 in 1830 to 255,000 in 1840; 
in Mississippi from GG,000 in 1830 to 195,000 in 1840, while the 
whites in Alabama increased from 70,000 to 335,000, and in 
Mississippi from 70,000 to 179,000 only.' The evil eflfect of 
speculation and State debts was not so much in the establish- 
ment of too expansive plantations, great^er even than the ac- 
tual economic demand of an era of agricultural exploitation 
might have caused, as in the inflation and bankruptcy that 

' Tucker, Uuit«d States, p. 50. 


this mortgage system involved. When the crash of 1837 came 
it prodaced the greatest agricultural depression in this region. 
The cotton crop fell off by one-tifth, some 168,000 bales, in 1838, 
and though it recovered in a few years, the collapse and over- 
production together kept the price low. The planter had noth- 
ing to meet his obligations with, as he had relied upon his 
crops to raise his mortgage. The banks, unable to collect 
their loans, failed, and productive industry got a setback that 
it did not recover from till 1850. 

(4) When cotton production began to revive, toward the 
fifties, it became a means of further extending the plantation 
as opposed to the public-land system. It was probably, after 
slavery, more important in this effect than any of the other 
influences mentioned. It not only held the plantations 
together, as the inheritance laws did in the old States of the 
South, but it gave them a constant tendency to increase in 
size up to the maximum limit of profitable production. De 
Bow * gives us a striking example of this even in the forties, 
which he seems to take as typical of cotton estates, thougli 
this particular one was in Louisiana. In 1839 it had 400 acres 
under cultivation ; within seven years it had increased by nearly 
one-third, i. e., to 550 acres, and that while the labor force 
remained practically constant, having increased by only 2 

With the year 1850 we find definite statistics as to the size 
of cotton plantations in Alabama and Mississippi. According 
to the census they were seldom less than 400 .acres, and in 
some cases 10,000 acres. On the basis of this census 675 acres 
was estimated as an average amount under cultivation in the 
cotton States, but in Alabama and Mississippi the average 
plantation was smaller. A little later, Olmstead, a New York 
farmer, traveling in the Southwest, found the average middle- 
class plantation to be of 600 acres, while the best plantations 
on the Mississippi contained from 13,000 to 14,000 acres under 
caltivation, and in the back country there were a large num- 
ber of smaller ones of a few hundred acres. In 1860 in the 
ten cotton States from North Carolina to Texas there were 
nearly 4,000 plantations having over 1,000 acres under cultiva- 
tion and many times this number having from 500 to 1,000 
acres. This will suffice to show the general tendency to 

I De Bow, I. lip. 173, 174. 



increase in size, dae to the product cotton. There were three 
types of plantation, developed according to location: (1) The 
river and Golf plantation on the Mississippi and large rivers 
flowing into it and on the Oalf of Mexico. These were the 
largest, employing slaves by hundreds. (2) The inland plan- 
tation in central and northern Mississippi and central Alabama, 
usually of 600 acres, cultivated with some 50 slaves. (3) The 
Piedmont plantation of 400 acres and less, employing 30,20, 10, 
or even a less number of slaves. 

The only permanent effect of the public-land system, then, 
seems to have been in the highland regions. The hill conntrj- 
was covered with farms of the poor non-slaveholder or small 
slaveholder cultivating little cotton and more grain. There is 
evidence that in 1850 and 1860 there were a considerable num- 
ber of these holding a few hundred acres, for by tbem the aver- 
age farm acreage in Alabama in 1850 was reduced to only 280 
acres and that of Mississippi to 309 acres. Yet even these small 
farms tended to be crowded out. By 1860 the average acreage 
in each of these States had increased by one-fifth, i. e., in 
Alabama to 346 and in Mississippi to 370 acres. The same 
effect was to be seen in Louisiana and Arkansas, due also to 
products. Sugar and cotton areas in Louisiana increased from 
372 to 536 acres and in Arkansas from 146 to 245. But in the 
old States the development was just the reverse, and tended 
toward a breakup of the plantations. Average areas were 
reduced in all the other Southern States toward the limits of the 
Northern farm. Old Southern farms had an average acreage 
of but 366 in 1850, and this decreased to 329 acres in 1860, 
while in the North the average of 116 acres in 1850 and of 105 
in 1860 bear witness to a similar tendency.' The abolition of 
entails had a great effect upon this at the South, and also 
emancipation and exportation of slaves, just as since the war 
the abolition of slavery has been the chief cause for further 
reduction. Another cause was the decadence of agriculture 
before developing commercial and manufacturing centers and 


In an age of agricultural exploitation the Southern land sys- 
tem was probably the most profitable that could have been 
adopted. It was correlated both with the developed systems 
of labor and crops on the principle of preserving immediate 

•Ceosutt, I860, Agririilturp. 222. 


economies, yet while it returned large gross profits to the planter 
the net ultimate gain to society was small. When exploita- 
tion was past evils of a wide social and economic nature 
appeared whose ill efifects were left to be combated by succeed- 
ing ^nerations. The most important of these were exclusive 
agricnlture, scattered settlement and isolation, absence of 
numerous trade and social centers, non-improveipent of lands, 
soil destruction and absenteeism, all of which harmed no sec- 
tion except its own in material interests. But withal the 
Southern system produced a moral and social type of the indi- 
vidual that for its altruism, homely virtues, conservatism in 
ethics, and idealism in politics has found no parallel except 
amongst purely agricultural peoples. 


WITH ENGLAND (1861-1865). 

By J. M. CALLAHAN, Ph. D., 



ENGLAND (1861-1865). 

By J. M. Callahan. 

In a small room on the third floor of the Treasury Depart- 
ment at Washington, overlooking the Execative Mansion, are 
several trunks of manuscript archives, which were purchased 
at a cost of $75,000, and which relate the story of the diplo- 
matic efforts by which the leaders of the Southern Confederacy 
hoped to create a new nation by the dismemberment of an old ^ 
one. During the period of those efforts there was considerable 
English symxmthy with the secession movement, but the condi- 
tion of parties, the sentiment against slavery, the active efforts 
of English friends of the Union^ together with the diplomacy 
of Seward and Adams, prevented the success of all Oonfederate 
attempts to secure recognition or intervention. It has been 
said that the dress suit and digestive apparatus of England 
were hostile to the United States; but that the cerebro-centers, 
the heart and the muscle, were friendly. 

On the day of Lincoln's inauguration, only one month after 
the temiK)rary organization of the Confederacy at Montgomery, 
Mr. Gregory, in the House of Commons, gave notice of a motion 
to recognize the independence of the Oonfederate States. 
Southern leaders hoped that their cause would be favored by 
an English desire to retaliate against the American tariff. On 
March 16, 1861, while Confederate commissioners were at 
Washington endeavoring to open peace negotiations with Sec- 
retary Seward, Robert Toombs instructed Commissioners 
Yancey, Host, and Mann to go to London ^<as soon as possible'' 
to press their claims for recognition. The instructions recited 
that dissolution was the result of long and mature deliberation 
to escape the x)^rsistent efforts to compel the South to pay 
bounties to the North in the shape of high protective tariffs; 



that secession violated no allegiance or rights; that the Wash- 
ington Government was not in a condition to offer opposition ; 
that a large part of the !North woald not favor resistance, and 
that there was no unusual reason to fear war; that the South 
hadabundantmeansand determination and wonld win. Power 
was given the commissioners to make a treaty practically pro- 
viding for free trade, and a willingness was expressed to con- 
tinue all the United States treaties except the clause providing 
for the maintenance of a naval squadron on the coast of Africa. 

After Sumter fell, Toombs saw that war was unavoidable, and 
soon authorized the commissioners to issue commissions for 
privateers, stating that the large United States Navy made it 
necessary for the Confederacy to adopt this mode of defense. 
In his first instructions he had made no allusion to slavery, but 
he now stated that it was evidently the intention of Lincoln to 
overthrow Southern domestic institutions, and to sweep away 
the rights of minorities. He avowed the right of each Stat<e to 
judge what are infractions of the Constitution, and to decide 
upon the remedy. The enthusiasm and unanimity of the South 
were declared ; England was to be told of the prejudicial results 
of the blockade, and Bullock was sent to Europe to secure 
war vessels. 

Before receiving the later instructions, the commissioners, 
through the good offices of Mr. (vregory, had obtained an 
informal interview with Earl Bussell, of the foreign office at 
London, on May 3. In reply to their representations, which 
emphasized the unrestricted commercial advantages that would 
result to England by recognition, Russell stated that the whole 
matter would be a subject of cabinet consideration, but he 
expressed no opinion. Mr. liost received more encouragement 
in Paris, where a confidential friend of the Emperor said that 
England and France would see that their vessels reached the 
Confederate ports so long as cotton was for sale ; that France 
would be ready unofficially and secretly to receive suggestions 
from the commissioners, and that recognition was a mere mat- 
ter of time. About this time Mercier, the French minister at 
Washington, advised his Government to intervene by forcibly 
raising the blockade, but obstacles presented themselves. In 
a dispatch to Toombs the commissioners expressed confidence 
that neither England nor France was averse to the disintegra- 
tion of the United States, but they feared that public opinion 
against the Confederacy on the question of slavery would 


embarrass the Government in dealing with the question of 

The commissioners had another interview before the end of 
May, but Bussell only said that he desired to communicate with 
both parties as to rules concerning blockades and neutrals. 

In April the British Grovernment had decided not to intrude 
its counsels unsolicited to prevent the war. On May 2 Bussell 
referred to it as a bad war and said ^< For God's sake let us if 
I>ossible keep out of it." On May 6, three days after his inter- 
view with the Confederate commissioners, he announced the 
decision of the law officers of the Crown that the Southern 
Confederacy must be treated as a belligerent, as Greece had 
been in 1825. On May 13 the British Government, basing its 
action on <Hhe size and i)opulation of the seceding States," 
issued a proclamation of neutrality. A few hours later Charles 
Francis Adams arrived at London with Seward's firm instruc- 
tions to represent the whole of his country, and decidedly to 
oppose any wavering policy of Great Britain which might 
give the Confederates hope of recognition. These instructions 
were emphasized on May 21, when Seward, having heard of 
Russell's interview with the Confederate commissioners, wrote 
Adams that he would desist from either unofficial or official 
intercourse with the British Government ^' so long as it [should] 
continue intercourse of either kind with the domestic enemies 
of this country." * 

Daring the remainder of their stay in London it appears 
that Tancey, Bost, and Mann could do no more than to affect 
public opinion. At their last application for an interview 
Bussell requested them to make their communication in writ- 
ing. In June they had found that general opinion at London 
recognized that the North was too strong for the South. 
Gregory's motion looking toward recognition was postponed 
June 7, at Bussell's request. Seeing no immediate hope of 
recognition by England and France, the commissioners sug- 
gested that communication should be opened with Spain. In 
July, after the Confederate victory at Manassas, B. M. T. 
Hunter, who had replaced Toombs since political expediency 
had made Bichmond the executive center, informed the com- 
missioners that the Union sentiment in the South had been 
silenced and that Maryland and Missouri were kept in the 
Union only by Federal troops. On August 24 the commission- 
ers in a long communication to Bussell gave reasons for imme- 
diate recognition, but they could get no satisfactory reply. 


On the same day Hanter instructed them to hurry to Madrid 
to suggest alliance and seek for recognition. On September23 
orders were given to disunite the commission, and Mason and 
Slidell were appointed as commissioners to England and France, 
respectively, with instructions to urge that the new homoge- 
neous Southern union could serve as no precedent for revolu- 
tionary violence, that its existence was of deep commercial 
and political interest to other nations, and that they should 
intervene against American intervention and ineffectual block- 
ades. Of the former commission, Mann was sent to Belgium, 
Host to Spain, and Yancey returned to the Confederacy in Feb- 
ruary, a few days after Mason's arrival at London. Hunter 
was dinappointed in his hope that England and France would 
raise the blockade. Russell did not deem it advisable to 
merely break a blockade for the sake of getting cotton; I>ord 
Palmerston was not ready to offer peaceftil mediation as a 
preparation for intervention on a grander scale; France would 
not act without England. Kost, who went to Spain, but 
resigned in the spring of 1862, in bad health and discouraged, 
said that France waited for England, that England would do 
nothing so long as she could keep peace at home, and that 
Spain would be the last power to act. In the early part of 
February, 1862, Rost had in his possession a ^< Confidential mem- 
orandum," dated ^^ London, 31 January, 1862," and importing a 
correspondence between the British cabinet and the maritime 
powers of Europe concerning the <' stone fleet" and the bloi^k- 
ade, in which the powers alluded to the blockade as ^4neffe<> 
tual." But Slidell said it was either a hoax played upon Rost's 
credulity or an invention of his own. 

Yancey, who left London with Mason's "No. 1," stating that 
the ministry still seemed to "hang fire," ran the blockade at 
Sabine Pass, and soon reached New Orleans, where he informed 
Soule and others that Prince Albert and Queen Victoria were 
against the secessionists, and that English feeling was so strong 
against slavery that the Government would hardly dare to give 
any help that would tend to perpetuate it. On March 29, after 
receiving this discouraging news at Richmond, Mr. Davis ac- 
cepted Senator Yancey's resignation with regret. 

Mason's instructions of September 23 had told him to go to 
London with as little delay as posssible, but he and Slidell 
found difiiculties in running the blockade at Charleston. They 
finally chartered a boat for $10,000, and on October 12 W. H. 


Trescott telegraphed Hunter that they had escaped iu the dark- 
ness and rain of the preceding night. They reached Cuba, 
where they found much sympathy for the Confederacy, and 
after waiting for a steamer until November 7, they boarded the 
Trentf only to be captured the next day and detained until 
January 1. Mason reached London on January 29, 1862, and 
a few days later, when Parliament met, Gregory found him a 
place in the Commons to hear the Queen^s speech, which disap- 
pointed him by saying nothing on the blockade. Mason wrote 
that ''our friends in Parliament" had contemplated a motion 
to amend the address by proposing the recognition of the 
Southern Confederacy, but that they had abandoned it on ac- 
count of the Queen being in mourning, and that they would 
first try opposition to the blockade. Slidell had promptly been 
granted an interview at Paris, and was already << insisting on 
the inefficiency of the blockade and the vandalism of the stone 
fleet.'' On February 7, by advice of Gregory, who was steer- 
ing him, Mason applied to the British Government for an in- 
terview, and was received unofficially on Monday following at 
BusselPs home. The dispatch reporting that interview never 
succeeded in getting through the blockade, but subsequent 
events show that Mason received no encouragement. 

Hunter was vainly hoping that England and France, acting 
from both commercial and political motives, would end the 
blockade by intervention. In his instructions to Mason on 
February 8, 1862, he said that Mr. Davis would not deprecate 
intervention, but he desired that the treaty of peace should 
enlarge the Southern agricultural area and make it independ- 
ent of the Korth, besides giving it Chesapeake Bay, by means 
of which to concentrate and control the Western commerce. 
He desired that the Confederacy should include Maryland, 
Kentucky, and Missouri, and all south of those States, together 
with New Mexico and Arizona, through which a railroad could 
be built to the Pacific. He stated that the South needed 
North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri 
to produce food supplies, so that the remaining Southern States 
could devote their entire attention to supplying the demand 
for cotton and sugar. Besides, he declared that if Maryland, 
Kentucky, and Missouri should go to the North, it would end 
the hope of a balance of power and lead to war, or to a South- 
em party favoring reunion iu order to secure peace and trade 
advantages. In addition to political reasons. Hunter claimed 


that it was England's commercial interest to enlarge the area 
from which she draws tribute." 

It was not until June 23 that Mason replied. In the mean- 
time a more permanent Confederate Government had been 
boru in a storm on February 22 ; defeats had resulted in sterner 
stubbornness; Oongress on March 5 had resolved never to 
affiliate with the Northern invaders; Count Mercier, the French 
minister at Washington, had gone to Kichmond on a mysteri- 
ous errand ; Southern missionaries, with plenty of money, had 
been sent abroad to aid and direct public opinion; Slidell 
had been instrucl;ed to ofifer Napoleon $7,000,000 in cotton to 
indemnify him for the expense of a fleet to relieve the Con- 
federacy and establish communication with Europe; but the 
LTnited States occupation of the Confederate ports and the 
vigorous blockade gave little hope for any interference. On 
March 10 Earl Bussell had said that separation would be a 
result of the war, but in May, when Lord Lyons, the British 
minister at Washington, embarked for England it was said at 
Richmond that he would *' report the rebellion on its last 
legs." In his dispatch to Benjamin, who had succeeded Hun- 
ter at Bichmond, Mason said that he saw very little prospect 
for <Hhe suggested form of mediation" unless the cotton 
famine should urge the British Government to act. Napoleon 
was urging but waiting. Bussell, however, denied that France 
had proposed joint mediation, and said that it would be inop- 
portune. Mason complained that even American seizure of 
British ships on the high seas between England and Nassau 
had not caused the British Government to intervene, and he 
thought it inexpedient even to renew the request for recogni- 
tion unless it be done as a demand of right, to be followed by 
his retirement to the Continent, as a stroke of Confederate 

Lindsay's carefully studied motion for mediation, after dan- 
gling before the House of Commons for several weeks, was with- 
drawn on July 18 at the request of Lord Palmerston, after a 
long and spirited discussion in which Lindsay firmly declared, 
and others as firmly denied, that the American war was the 
result of 'taxation without representation." Palmerston, 
though he said the Thirty Years' war was a joke compared to 
the civil war, denied that England would be justified in assum- 
ing the independence of the Confederates, and stated that 
recognition would lead to direct intervention. Nai)oleou said 


that he regretted that the blockade had ever been respected, 
and he was still impatiently willing to cooperate with England, 
but he refnsed to act alone ''to draw the chestnats from the 
fire for her benefit." 

Mason was vexed that the British Government could not be 
driven to a decided position, and his budding hope for a new 
ministry did not find a favorable temperature for healthy 
growth. His friends in Parliament said that there were polit- 
ical reasons for not ousting Palmerston while the Queen was 
in mourning and while there were fears that she would ''go 
crazy." On July 7 Mason asked Eussell for an interview and 
for a statement of the British attitude toward the rules pf 
blockade as laid down in 1856, but in reply he received a 
mere acknowledgtbent of the receipt of his letter. On July 
24, acting in cooperation with Slidell at Paris, he addressed a 
letter to Russell, in which he said that the Confederate States 
asked for recognition as an European duty. At the same time, 
desiring to state orally that a failure of England to grant 
recognition would operate as an incentive to the United States 
to protract the struggle, he asked for an interview. Five days 
later the Altibama ("290'*), under the pretense of taking out a 
pleasure excursion including ladies and gentlemen of the family 
of John Laird, M. P., left Liverpool in the face of Mr. Adams's 
warnings, and was soon in the hands of the Confederate naval 
officers. If Mason's hopes were increased by this circumstance, 
he was disappointed. Bussell declined an interview because 
he thought no good could come of it. On August 2, after a 
cabinet meeting, he wrote Mason that the British Government 
did not presume to interpret the United States Constitution; 
said that Seward affirmed that the disafiPected population in 
the South owed its main strength to the hope of assistance 
from Europe; and that in the face of fluctuating events, con- 
tradicting allegations, and uncertainty as to the stability and 
permanence of the Confederate Government, the British Gov- 
ernment was "determined to wait." On August 4, Mason 
wrote Benjamin: "The British Government shuts its eyes to 
accumulating proofs • * ♦ and relies upon the ox)en men- 
dacity of Seward." He hoped that the attitude of Napoleon 
and division in the cabinet would drag the Government into 
a '* disgraceful reversal of its decision." On the same day 
Lord Campbell called for the correspondence with Mason, but 
withdrew his motion on the request of Eussell, who referred to 
HIST 98 18 



the unofficial character of the correspoudence and stated that 
its publication was not expedient. 

Notwithstanding Mason's difficulties iu holding intercourse 
with the Government and his failure to obtain recognition, 
Benjamin, on September 26, elated over McClellan's defeat, 
advised him to remain in England, where he could disseminate 
favorable impressions and where contingencies might arise to 
make his presence important. His house had already become 
a resort for Confederate sympathizers, and he had excellent 
facilities for reaching the public through the Index and sev- 
eral of the English journals. Mallory, of the Confederate 
navy, encouraged by the escape of the Alabama from Liver- 
pool in July, 1861^ sent Mr. G. N. Sanders to England with a 
contract to secure the construction of six ironclad steamers, 
to be paid for in cotton. A loan from Europe, based upon 
cotton certificates, was also under consideration. Benjamin, 
on October 28, in a letter which was captured ^ and published 
i)efore it reached Mason, contrasted the friendliness of French 
statesmen with the ^'rude incivility of Russell,'' and took fresh 

In September, both Eussell and Palmerston contemplated 
mediation. Palmerston said that in case of a new Federal 
defeat "the iroix- should be struck while • ^^ • hot," but 
one month later the cabinet disagreed upon this policy. 

At this time Kapoleon was shaking hands with Slidell and 
listening to proposals to build a Confederate navy in French 
ports, and a few days later, when the cotton famine was "loom- 
ing up," and also simultaneously with the expedition of 35,000 
reenforcements to Mexico, he formally invited England and 
Eussia to intervene in the American war by offering a six 
months' armistice with theblockade removed. The French note 
was read to Russell on November 10, and he replied on Novem- 
ber 13 declining any immediate action. At Richmond he was 
accused of being afraid of giving offense to the United States. 
Benjamin, however, was not discouraged, and he began to 
advise the European powers to take steps toward the preven- 
tion of a Northern monopoly of the trade with the Confeder- 
acy after peace should be declared. But the Richmond author- 
ities were "out of humor" with England. On October 31, 
Mr. Davis had complained that England, after asking the 
Confederates to concur in principles regarding neutrals, had 

> From April 14 to November 6, Mason received uotbiug from Buivjamin. 



shown herself unfriendly (1) by derogating her own principle 
that no blockade was binding unless enforced, and (3) by 
refasing to reply to requests for explanation. On January 3, 
1863, Mason in a note brought this complaint to the attention 
of Earl Bussell. On February 10 Bussell replied that England 
would practically adhere to the rule of 1856, which was aimed 
against paper blockades, but stated that the escape of vessels 
on dark nights or during adverse winds did not render a block- 
ade ineffectual. It was in vain that Mason urged that the 
departure of vessels was notorious, and that the import duties 
collected at Confederate ports were twice as much as before 
the war. 

The following June, Russell, in reply to a desultory lecture 
by Olanricarde in the House of Lords, said that the United 
States blockade of 2,500 miles was as legitimate as the Eng- 
lish blockade of ^,000 miles in the war against Napoleon I. 
Mason wrote Benjamin that Bussell had repudiated the prin- 
ciples of 1856, and added : << We will have to watch him when 
the time comes to make treaties." 

During the spring of 1863 the fate of the soi-diaant Confed- 
erate States hung in the balance. Doubt succeeded expect- 
ancy. The Confederate bonds were floated in Europe above 
par on March 28, but in a few weeks Mason was unable to 
keep them propped up. But the friends of the Confederacy 
in Parliament kept up an agitation on American affairs. They 
objected to American seizure of British vessels, complained of 
American prize-court proceedings, and brought accusations of 
American enlistments in Ireland. Friends of the Union had 
complained that a Confederate navy was building at Liverpool, 
but the Government seized suspicious vessels, and Palmerston 
said that an honest neutrality would be preserved. The recent 
correspondence intercepted by the United States probably 
made him more alert and careful. Mason wrote Benjamin that 
the sympathy of four- fifths of the Commons was with the South, 
and complained that the Government favored the United 
States. A member of the House of Lords said it gave him 
pain that the British Government allowed the Federals so 
much privilege, and he desired to see an ^Mmpression made 
upon the dis-United States" by some bold stand which he 
believed was the best policy to prevent collision. 

Some in the Confederacy objected to further attempts to 
establish diplomatic relations with the British Government. 
In the early part of the year Benjamin, seeing little to hope 


from England, and at the same time having reasons to sus- 
pect Napoleon's designs in Texas, Louisiana, and Florida, asked 
Slidell to open communications with Spain by suggesting the 
advantages of alliance and offering to join in a disclaimer as to 
designs on Guba. About the first of the year the British Gov- 
ernment had dismissed its acting consul, Magee, at Mobile 
because he sent Confederate specie to England on a British 
war vessel. In June Mr. Davis refused to recognize Magee^s 
successor because he had been appointed through Lord Lyons 
at Washington. The exequator of British Consul Moore at 
Richmond was also revoked because he evaded the Confeder- 
ate authority. The Richmond Whig said that the recent con- 
trol by Lord Lyons of consular offices in the Confederacy might 
render it impossible for the Southern people to refrain from 
making remarks until the end of the war, and it suggested that 
the '< so-called" should recall the private citizens who had been 
cooling their heels to no earthly purpose in the antechambers 
of St. James and the Tuilleries. 

The crisis in England came in the middle of 1863, when Lee 
was in the heart of the North. Napoleon, sitting with the map 
of the United States unrolled before him, only waited for Lee 
to take Washington in order that he might grant recognition. 
In June, contrary to recent rumors in England, Napoleon told 
Slidell that he was still ready for joint recognition. He had 
given his sanction to the building of Confederate vessels in 
French ports. Lindsay and Roebuck, politicians and Confed- 
erate sympathizers in the House of Commons, went to France, 
and after having a long conference with Napoleon, returned to 
London with the intention of forcing Russell into cooperation 
with France in favor of the Confederacy. They declared that 
Napoleon had, a few days before, communicated with the 
British Government suggesting such cooperation. Russell 
and Mr. Layard, the under secretary, denied that any such 
communication had recently been received. Palmerston gave 
a parting shot at the two '< amateur diplomatists" by saying 
that England negotiated through regularly accredited minis- 
ters and was opposed to ** double diplomacy." If NaiK)leon 
sent any communication, as Roebuck said he promised to send, 
it was probably "unofficial," and the British Government 
refused to pull Napoleon's chestnuts from a fire too hot for 
imperial hands. 


In Jaly Mason bad some correspondence with Bnssell as to 
the extradition of a Confederate murderer^ as to the blockade, 
and as to the consular agents in the South. Bussell still saw 
no reason to change his opinion concerning the blockade. He 
had continued to combat the ^' desultory lectures " on inter- 
national law in the House of Lords, and he now wrote Mason 
that the American blockade was not rendered ineffective by 
the escape of blockade runners on dark nights and during 
adverse winds. Mason informed Benjamin that Bussell would 
doubtless resort to evasions in favor of the Korth, and he said : 
"Oar friends are depressed bjTthe late news from the South." 
The Confederate bonds were falling, and the only remedy was 
to endeavor to export more cotton by fast steamers. Mason 
said that the Confederate Government should assume entire 
control and management of running the blockade and of 
exporting cotton. 

Benjamin, seeing by the Parliamentary debates that Eng- 
land would decline overtures for a treaty, on August 4 wrote 
Mason that his residence in London was " no longer conducive 
to the interests nor consistent with the dignity of the Confed- 
eracy,'' and advised his withdrawal. On September 21 Mason 
notified Bussell and the newspapers of his reasons for with- 
drawal. Bussell replied that the reasons for declining the 
Confederate overtures were still in force, and expressed regret 
that circumstances had prevented the cultivation of Mr. 
Mason's personal acquaintance. The London papers, for 
which the Confederate press agent, Hotze, wrote editorials, 
commented upon Bussell's very marked x^a-rtisanship in favor 
of the United States, stating that he licked the feet of Adams 
and bit everyone else who ventured within the length of his 

Mason, on his departure to Paris, assured Benjamin (in 
October) that the failure of Boebuck's motion was due not to 
any disaffection toward the Confederacy, but to the peculiar 
structure of parties and to the popularity of Lord Palmerston. \ 
He was ready to speculate further. He was accustomed to 
dealing in futures. He now informed Benjamin that Palmer- ^^ 

ston was old and subject to sharp attacks of the gout, and tUat 
if there should be no Palmerston it was possible thut Bussell 
would be displaced and the English policy greatly modified. 

In view of the disturbed condition of European affairs, the 
probable relations of France and Austria in Mexico, and of 





possible contingencies and unexpected relations in whicb Con- 
federate interests could not wait for the delays of uncertain 
communication, Mason was appointed commissioner to the 
Continent with duplicate full powers addressed in blank, so 
they could be used for any capital in Europe. He never had 
occasion to use these powers, but he continued to draw his 
yearly salary of $12,000 until the end of the war, conferring 
alternately with Slidell at Paris, and with Southern sympa- 
thizers in the Parliament at London. 

At the beginning of 1864 the Confederacy was in desperate 
straits. In February Maury carried news to Richmond that 
the Confederate agents had failed to get ships from England 
and France. The publication of a report represented as 
emanating from Mallory, of the Confederate Navy, and inti- 
mating a disregard for British neutrality, induced Bussell to 
say that the Confederates would be notified that such conduct 
would not be tolerated. On April 12 Mason wrote that there 
was no hope even from France, notwithstanding all of Ka]K>- 
leon's ^^ fairest professions sedulously made." Promenading 
through Capitol Square at Eichmond, Jefferson Davis said, 
^^We have no fHends abroad," but he was still determined; 
and Mason wrote, " We can yet work out our salvation." 

Napoleon still kept his eyes upon the American map, and 
would probably have been ready to recognize the Confederacy 
if Lee could have taken Washington. But he saw the almost 
inexhaustible resources of the North, and the indications that 
the Confederacy was playing a losing game. He was friendly 
toward the Confederacy, but it was to his advantage to remain 
on friendly terms with the United States. In June ex- United 
States Senator Gwin, with a letter from Napoleon, was on his 
way to colonize Sonora with persons of Southern birth and 
proclivities ; but the Confederate hope of securing a navy from 
French ports was terminated by the action of the French 
Government after the vessels were ready to sail. On July 8 
Mason wrote, " We have been entirely duped by that power, 
and worse." 

Mason was at this time looking forward to an interview with 
Lord Palmerston. In the last week of May Lindsay had had 
a conversation with Palmerston with a view to conciliating 
Government support upon a resolution in Parliament for joint 
mediation. He wrote Mason that Palmerston favored the res- 
olution, but thought best to wait, and that he had expressed 


a williDgnesB to hear Mr. Mason's views. Urged by Lindsay, 
Mr. Mason went to London with the expectation of having an 
interview with Lord Palmerstou, though he felt that only the 
news of a great victory coald give any hope that the ministry 
woald snpport Lindsay's resolution. The interview occurred 
on July 14 at the prime minister's home. In reply to questions 
concerning the nature and probable length of the war, the 
probable result of the coming Presidential election upon the 
war, American opposition to intervention, the prospects of the 
South, etc. Mason said that opinion in the North was strongly 
against a continuation of the war, that the Washington Gov- 
ernment would be forced to cease hostilities and make peace, 
and that he did not doubt the ultimate success of the Gonfed- 
eracy. He did not urge recognition, but he incidentally 
referred to it as a means of stopping the war. Palmerston 
was friendly, but did not define his x>olicy for the future. Ben- 
jamin feared that Mason had exaggerated the prospects of 
peace and of recognition by the United States. He suggested 
that unless England dreaded the restoration of peace it would 
have been better for Mason to have taken an opposite view 
and to have informed Lord Palmerston that the war might 
long continue to linger if Europe persisted in encouraging the 
North by refusing recognition to the South. He declared that 
recognition would end the war, and that nothing else would. 

Lindsay had been unable to conciliate the ministry and had 
abandoned his resolution before Parliament adjourned. On 
August 4 Mason, preparing for a visit to places in England 
and Ireland, saw nothing to do but to await events, hoping 
tbat the Presidential election and the antiwar feeling in the 
United States and the distress of the people in the manufac- 
turing districts of England would favor the (Confederacy. 

It had often been suggested that Europe was prejudiced 
against the Confederacy chiefly on account of its strong adher- 
ence to slavery. Mason so interpreted one of Earl Bussell's 
speeches, and he reported that even warm friends of the South 
were so strongly opposed to slavery that it was *' but vain to 
combat their sentiments," though he told them that the film 
would fall from their eyes, and that they would be converted 
in time. In June, 18d3, Mr. De Leon, a Confederate financial 
agent at Paris, in a letter to Mr. Benjamin, recommending the 
withdrawal of Mason, Slidell, and Mann from Europe, said 
that Confederate argument was powerless in the face of 


European prejudice against slavery. M. de Lessapa declared 
that France could never extend recognition without some 
promise of emancipation. In January, 1864, Mr. Mann wrote 
from London that the ^' Southern Independence Association," of 
that city, was kindly trying to show that recognition must lead 
to revision and gradual abolition of slavery. 

As early as the spring of 1862 J. T. Pickett, the Confederate 
special agent to Mexico, suggested that the South should 
adopt a policy of emancipation. After the summer of 1863 
several members of the (Jonfederate Congress had advocated 
the abolition of slavery in order to obtain European inter- 
vention. In 1864 the proposal to arm the slaves led to a 
growth of opinion in favor of emancipation. Mr. Benjamin 
was willing to go to any extremity to prevent reunion, and he 
agreed with General Lee in favor of emancipation and the 
employment of negroes in the army. On November 7, 1864, 
Mr. Davis had recommended to Congress the enlistment of 
negroes, with a promise of freedom, and after much excitement 
and opposition by many slaveholders, this i>olicy was finally 
adopted on March 9, 1865 — at a time when the archives at 
liichmond were already being assorted preparatory to the 
evacuation of the city. From all signs slavery was doomed. 

For weeks the Confederacy had been entering its 
darkest period. Mr. Benjamin had ceased to smile his usual 
smile. The governors of States refused to obey orders from 
Kichmond; desertions were depleting the army; the people 
suffered for want of food and clothes, and complained of the 
speculators; the soldiers accused the large landowners of 
evading military duty; Congress and Mr. Davis were quarrel- 
ing, while the Union army thundered at their gates. It had 
become evident that the intervention of European powers was 
the only hope, and soon prominent men favored immediate 
emancipation for foreign effect. On January 25 Mr. Lyons, 
who had recently been a member of the Confederate Congress, 
favored sending a commission to Europe to secure recogni- 
tion on a basis of emancipation — as a dernier ressort. Such a 
commissioner had, in fact, already been decided upon by Mr. 
Benjamin and Mr. Davis. 

In the autumn of 1864 it was realized by officials at Rich- 
mond that desperate measures were necessary to the success 
of the Confederacy. The last hope of an almost expiring Con- 
federacy was to secure a treaty by which to dispose of cotton 


and to secure money and vessels. Benjamin proposed negoti- 
ations with Europe on the basis of emancipation and a promise 
of cotton — the only remaining resource by which to purchase 
a navy. He proposed the seizure of the cotton by the govern- 
ment as a war measure. Mr. Davis hesitated to agree to this 
extra-constitutional policy, but after much deliberation he 
acquiesced. It was the last card, and it was played without 
authority of the Confederate Congress. In December Hon. 
Duncan F. Kenner, of Louisiana, the chairman of the ways 
and means committee, was selected as the proper man to go to 
Europe upon this mission. 

On December 29, 1864, Benjamin, in a letter to Slidell, said 
that the Confederate States, in a four years' courageous strag- 
gle for self-government, had also really been fighting the bat- 
tles of England and France; that in calculating the length of 
the war they bad not expected Europe to aid the United States 
by the abandonment of the rights of neutrals, by closing the 
I>ort8 to Confederate prizes, by the seizure of vessels intended 
for the Confederacy, and by indifference to an unequal fight, 
but that, notwithstanding their miscalculations and the afflic- 
tions caused by the blockade and devastation, they were deter- 
mined never to reunite with the North. He also referred to 
Seward's " one-war-at-a-time i)olicy," and warned Europe 
against Northern aggression. Then he approached the main 
question, " Were there no terms upon which recognition could 
be obtained t" "Will Europe never recognize us," said he, 
*^ till the United States consent? " Then it might be necessary 
to deliberate upon the terms that could be secured " from the 
foe." But it was urged that if Europe had objections to rec- 
ognition not already made known she should give the Confed- 
eracy a chance to meet them, or if it was her purpose to exact 
terms or conditions before recognition, a frank exposition of 
that purpose was due to humanity, " for." said Benjamin, " it 
may enable us to save many lives by consenting to such terms 
in advance of another year's campaign." 

On December 30 a copy of the above dispatch was addressed 
to Mason, with the statement that it would be handed to him 
b^ Mr. Kenner, whose verbal communications upon the sub- 
ject embraced in the dispatch was to be officially considered 
as reliable and ^'as emanating from the department under the 
instruction of the President." Kenner being delayed, Mason 
was instructed in a postscript that he need not wait for the 


oral commanicatioii before acting. ^^ Confer with Slidell," said 
the postscript, ''as to measares best adapted to elicit some 
decisive response from France and England as to their inten- 
tions concerning the war, after having freely conversed with 
Kenner and obtained the information he will convey." 

Mr. Kenner, with letters of credit and with full powers to 
make treaties, to bind the Confederacy to a policy of emanci- 
pation, and to sell all the cotton, if necessary, went to Wil- 
mington about January 12 and remained there till the fall of 
Fort Fisher, on January 17. General Bragg then proposed 
that he should attempt to run the blockade at Charleston. But 
Kenner concluded that he could go via New York and reach 
London a month earlier. He overcame the opposition of 
Benjamin to this plan, crossed the Potomac, rode horseback 
through Maryland, and safely reached New York, where he 
received his papers through an officer of the Confederate secret 
service. On reaching Europe he held a conference with Mason 
and Slidell, and had a long interview with the French minister 
of foreign affairs, who promised a reply in two weeks, but he 
did not obtain a hearing from Lord Palmerston. He negotiated 
with London capitalists, and before he heard of the evacu- 
ation of Richmond he had arranged with a syndicate to take 
$15,000,000 worth of cotton. 

There was little hope for recognition by England under 
existing circumstances. On February 15 Lord Bussell had 
written a fierce letter to Mason, Slidell, and Mann demanding 
that the "so called Confederate States" should cease practices 
showing a gross disregard for British neutrality and a desire 
to involve Great Britain in hostilities with the United States. 
On April 27, 1864, Mr. Davis had sent Jacob Thompson and 
C. C. Clay as special agents to Canada to carry out instruc- 
tions deceived orally, by which Canada was made a base for 
striking the United States in the back. Eussell's warning 
applied especially to these projected expeditions from Canada 
and to Confederate attempts to prepare war armaments in 
British waters. The warning reached Eichmond March 14, 
1865, having been sent by Seward to Grant and then to Lee 
by a flag of truce. "Great Britain gives us a kick while the 
Federal generals are pounding us," said a clerk in the Confed- 
erate war department. Benjamin's career as a diplomatist 
had about run its course. For several weeks he had seen very 
little diplomatic correspondence except what he read in the 


newspapers, and his principal work had been to grant pass- 
ports. He returned Bnssell's letter to General Lee, diplomat- 
ically declining to receive through the United States a com- 
munication from a neutral, and expressed doubt as to its 
authenticity. General Lee suggested that the expression of 
doubt be omitted. 

On the same day that Mr. Benjamin received Earl BusselPs 
warning, Mr. Mason had an interview with Lord Palmerston 
in which he mentioned the substance of Benjamin's note of 
December 30, 1864, and of his instructions to Mr. Kenner. He 
denied the report that an aggressive alliance was first proposed 
by the Gonfederate commissioners at the Hampton Beads con- 
ference, said that the Gonfederate States had offered to guar- 
antee the French West Indies to France in return for alliance, 
and left the impression that the United States was seeking 
aggression against its neighbors. He frequently and studi- 
ously reverted to the suggestion of emancipation in a way 
which Palmerston could not have misunderstood, but he made 
no distinct proposal in the terms of the note borne by Mr. 

Palmerston replied that England had no reasons back of 
those already given against recognition — and that those rea- 
sons still held. He admitted that England might have taken 
exception to the blockade during the first year of the war, but 
that it would have been impolitic — in view of the possible 
wars which England might have in the future, in which she 
might be placed in a position similar to that of the United 
States on the question of the blockade. Gn March 26 Lord 
Donnoughmore told Mason that it was too late to secure recog- 
nition by the abolition of slavery. 

All hope of recognition by England was gone, but rumors 
of French alliance or assistance floated in Bichmond until the 
last On April 1 the people were " fooled " by a report that a 
treaty had been signed with Maximilian. The next day the 
Union army broke the lines, and eight trains started south 
with the archives and executive baggage of a defunct Gonfed- 
eracy, which for four long years had stubbornly but unsuc- 
cessfully done everything in their power to secure recognition 
as a nation. 








By Edwin A. Qrosvenor. 

A few days ago a brilliant lady of my acqaaintance asked 
me on what subject I was to speak before this learned body. 
On my reply she exclaimed << American diplomacy ! I did not 
know there was any!" 

A prominent New England daily conclades a recent protest 
against territorial extension with the despairing query, '* Where 
are the trained diplomatists in this country who can be opposed 
to those whom those great nations have at their service f" 
The manner and inference of the question is that American 
diplomatists do not exist; that for lack of them America can 
not sit in the parliament of the nations because defenseless 
against the diplomatic shafts of foreign rivals. 

A leading paper of the New York press, discussing the peace 
commission shortly after it convened at Paris, says, ''All 
accounts agree that the Spanish commissioners have displayed 
a high order of ability. In debating power and dialectic 
resource as well as legal equipment they are said to have 
shown themselves the superiors of the Americans." 

A metropolitan magazine said on its opening page last June, 
'^ Even though a second-rate power and frightfully distracted 
by conditions at home, the Spaniards thua far have been more 
than a match for us, not only in diplomacy but also in their 
naval strategy." This is an editorial paragraph, written after 
the indiscreet letter of Seiior Don Dupuy de Lome and after 
the victory of Commodore Dewey in Manila Bay. 

Similar quotations might be multiplied almost without end. 
They emanate from no one party or section but from all. They 
simply voice the conviction, well nigh universal in this land, 
that the United States possess no diplomatists or at least none 
to be compared with those of Europe; that there is really no 
such thing as American diplomacy. It is possible that similar 



sentiments are entertained by some of this distinguished 

Met together to study great themes of history, is there any 
theme more worthy our attention as scholars and of more vital 
interest to us as citissens and patriots than this? It is a sub- 
ject not only of vast but of ever-expanding moment. Each 
passing day increases its importance. Barriers of national 
seclusion are everywhere tumbling like the great wall of China. 
Every nation elbows every other nation today. When any 
statesman speaks, his words are caught not only by the audi- 
ence at the banquet or in the hall, but by listeners all over the 
globe. What was whispered at evening in the conclave of 
envoys and embassadors is shouted the next morning by news- 
boys thousands of miles distant. In the fierce light beating 
upon every man who represents his country's interests at a 
foreign court ignorance of or acquaintance with social forms, j 

a tactful remark, or a blunder in high place, each detail of 
conduct or bearing, and the sum of his capacity or incapacity 
are flashed homeward and worldward with impartial and 
sometimes cruel speed. If, then, the opinion current in 
America of American diplomacy be founded upon fact, our 
condition is pitiable, even perilous, and can not fail to produce 
in us each a feeling of humiliation and shame. 

In many a mind to the word ^'diplomacy" attaches a subtle 
meaning, as of something abstruse, mysterious, almost mag- 
ical or necromantic. It is supposed to employ language like a 
juggler, not for the purpose of expressing but of concealing 
thought, and thereby diverting attention from a trick. Its 
methods are to be tortuous, and its object is not to be 
approached direct, but by windings and detours. Like Napo- 
leon's army at Verona, it marches westward when about to 
attack an enemy which is encamped behind it toward the east. 
And so the second definition given by Bescherelle is often 
acknowledged as the true meaning, '^Diplomacy is skill in 
deceit." Thus was it taught by Machiavelli before the modern 
name was coined. Thus was it practiced by Talleyrand, 

But there is another and, I think, a still more common 
acceptation of the term. Said a lady to me once, *'I just 
dote on diplomacy. It is so sweet; it is just lovely!" The 
occasion of her satisfaction was a ball at a European embassy 
in Vienna, and the hour was still early in the morning. My 
fair companion attached to the expression small thought of 


statecraft or of the roand table. To her it was represented 
by the courtly bearing of the gentlemen, by their assiduous 
devotion to their partners, by the Parisian toilet of the ladies, 
by the sound on many a lip of the most polite and cosmopoli- 
tan of tongues, by the stirring uiusic and the twinkling feet, by 
the atmosphere of luxury and polish, whence the uncouth was 
excluded and where none could enter unless to the manner 
bom. Thus to a great number diplomacy means ability to 
speak French, to wear a dress suit without embarrassment, 
to pay a well timed compliment, to make a graceful bow, to be 
master of the latest table etiquette and of the visiting card — 
above all, to be neither rustic nor awkward. ^^ISo buckles on 
his shoes!" gasps the Marquis de Dreax Br^z^, chief usher of 
the king. ^^ Ah, monsieur, then all is lost,'' replies a sympa- 
thizing colleague. '^ I am sure he didn't have a dress suit in 
his trunk," said a tourist in summary condemuation of a newly 
appointed consul to Tunis, with whom she had crossed the 
ocean. The buckle of a hundred years ago and the dress suit 
of to-day are seemly and an adjunct of society. But they and 
what they represent are not all of it or of diplomacy, nor are 
they the essential part. 

'^Diplomacy," says the Standard Dictionary, 'Ms the art or 
science that has to do with the transaction of business between 
sovereign States by means of accredited agents and according 
to international law." Says Calvo, ^' The part played by diplo- 
matic agents consists principally in conducting negotiations, 
♦ • • in watching over the execution of treaties, • • • 
in preventing anything which might injure the interests of 
their fellow-citizens in the countries where they reside, and in 
protecting those of them who may be obliged to ask for their 

Sach, then, is diplomacy — the art or science of international 

Such, then, is its object — the defense of the members of a 
State in their interests and rights. The dignity of the sover- 
eign, whether a crowned ruler or an uncrowned people, and 
the character of that sovereign for integrity, decency, and 
comity are to be maintained by acts and words, and also by 
the demeanor of accredited authorities. 

The diplomacy of every nation must emanate fjrom the home 
government as from a fountain head. The streams of influ- 
ence, in which it flows abroail, are its embassies or legations. 
HIST 98 19 


As the rills, clear or turbid, sweet or brackish, reveal the 
nature of tlieir source, so iuevitably by natural law does the 
embassy indicate the nature of the government and the nation 
which it represents. 

Regarded from another point of view, diplomacy is a substi- 
tute for force. The stronger of two parties can rely upon his 
might. The feeble, and not the powerful, are benefited by 
the enforcement of the laws. Carthage, and not Rome, in- 
voked the harsh treaties which concluded the Punic fights. 
And BO diplomacy has appeared on many a field, entering 
the lists as the champion of the oppressed and weak. It 
is to hold back the hand from the blow and to prevent the 
fall. As says Moreno in Le Dipiomate of Eugene Scribe: 
<^ War is the born enemy of diplomacy. In the silence of the 
cabinet, by the single force of reasoning, by happy and skill- 
ful combinations, to bridle ambition, maintain equity and 
peace between different powers, and force men finally to be 
happy without drawing the sword and without spilling their 
blood — what is more worthy of admiration ! What is more 
sublime! This is the triumph and the work of genius!^' 

The rhapsody of Count Moreno was prompted by an ideal 
diplomacy, by a dream of the thing as it ought to be and 
might be. But it was Louis XIV who gave to diplomacy its 
European form. To the overbearing arrogance of the strong 
he added the acuteness and cunning of the weak. His strate- 
gists and generals — Louvois, Vauban, Venddme — have left 
little permanent. But the successes of his diplomats — Bonre- 
pans, Torcy, d'Avaux — healed the wounds of military disaster 
and secured for France whatever she still preserves from that 
spectacular reign. 

None the less did Ix>uis XIY debauch diplomacy. He was 
always an actor on a royal stage, and his diplomacy was false 
and artificial like himself. Outwardly it was pomp and cere- 
mony and glitter. Inwardly it was a tissue of unprincipled 
craft, with its chief ambition to overreach and deceive. 

While the universal diplomacy of the eighteenth century 
was what Louis XIV had made it, the thirteen colonies on the 
Atlantic arose as an independent State. Benjamin Franklin 
appeared in Paris. The Boston tallow-chandler's son would 
seem little fitted by ancestry or training to act an effective 
part in that haughty and glittering capital. The throes of the 
French Revolution were still unfelt, and almost unheralded. 
Rank, birth, deportment, dress, controlled all. Over the 


realm that he had made so prominent still mled as by mortmain 
the traditions of the great king. To this company, conversant 
with every detail of that period, it woold be superfluous to 
recall Franklin's marvelous foreign career. In his words 
glowed truth and practical common sense, two factors which 
men had not been wont to find in diplomatic speech. He 
came like a fresh and invigorating breeze from his western 
wilds. Upon that country and upon that age he left an 
unequalled impress. He towered as the ablest diplomat of 
the eighteenth century. He was the first exx>onent of Ameri- 
can diplomacy. His republican simplicity, like Ithuriel's 
spear, approached the intrenched methods of duplicity and 
deception, and they shriveled at his touch. As legends of 
Richard the Lion-hearted still haunt the Arabian East, so do 
tales of Franklin, apocryphal or true, still survive in France. 

Not long since I read the following story in the Parisian 
Figaro. It was in description of a banquet, where the British 
ambassador, the French minister for foreign affairs, and Ben- 
jamin Franklin were the eminent guests. Each was to offer 
a toast and then speak to the sentiment he had proposed. 
With national pride the British ambassador gave, << Great 
Britain, the sun, whose rays encircle and vivify the earth." 
The French minister swelling with a sentiment as loyal, gave, 
^^ France, the moon, whose beneficent beams reach the nations 
even in the darkness and make their dreariness beautiful." 
Then came the turn of the republican guest. The chief celes- 
tial orbs were already appropriated, but it was directly after 
the close of the Revolutionaiy war. Eising in the expectant 
silence, Franklin gave, '^ George Washington, the Joshua who 
commanded the sun and .the moon to stand still, and they 
both obeyed him^JJ^ 

The recognition of American independence by the Dutch 
Republic was a memorable achievement of American diplo- 
macy. Through months of weary waiting, John Adams, the 
American envoy to Holland, had been denied an audience. 
At last he presented himself unannounced to the president of 
the States General, and demanded '^a categorical answer 
which he might transmit to his sovereign." He then visited 
in person every deputy of the confederation and repeated his 
demand. As Bancroft says, 'Hhe attention of Europe was 
drawn to the sturdy diplomatist, who dared, alone and unsup- 
ported, to initiate so novel and bold a procedure." Not a 
single foreign representative believed it could succeed. But 


on April 19, 1782, the seventh anniversary of the day when at 
Lexington the embattled fanners of his native State had fired 
the first shot for liberty, the States General unanimoosly 
resolved to receive John Adams minister of the United States 
of America. 

The crisis of our national life was not at Valley Forge or 
even during the Revolutionary war. The surrender of York- 
town and British lassitude after a seven years' war were not 
enough to wrest recognition of American independence from 
the mother State. The Swiss cantons had waited 333 years 
after Morgarten and the Dutch provinces 73 years after Ley- 
den for acknowledgment from their rejected suzerain. The 
tedious war left the thirteen colonies exhausted, impoverished, 
and distracted. They in the negotiations for peace between 
the royal players, France, Great Britain, and Spain, counted 
less than a pawn upon the board. A sharp game ensued. 
Diamond cut diamond. Scabies extremim occupet. When 
the treaty at last was signed, September 3, 1783, it echoed 
louder through Europe than had done the cannon at Saratoga 
Springs. As Professor Channing says, << Seldom in the history 
of diplomacy have negotiations begun in doubtful circum- 
stances been crowned with greater success." And Lecky, 
the English historian, writes, '^It is impossible not to be 
struck with the skill and hardihood that marked the American 

The second treaty with Great Britain, effected by Mr. Chief 
Justice Jay, was hardly less an American diplomatic victory. 
Passions have cooled with the lapse of time. No longer fren- 
zied by the border warfare that wrought upon our fathers, and 
weaned from their enthusiasm for a French Bepublic, we 
marvel at the aversion with which that treaty was received* 
Its stipulations were fair for both the contracting parties, but 
the gains accruing were distinctively our own. At the sug- 
gestion of Mr. Jay a most important provision, a novelty in 
international diplomacy, had been inserted. This was that 
war should never be made a pretext for the confiscation of 
debts or the annulment of contracts between individuals. 
Thus before her age reached a score of years the young Be- 
public had begun her beneficent contribution to the domain 
of international law. 

While approving the main treaty, the Senate exercised its 
prerogative in the rejection of one obnoxious and perhaps 
injurious clause. In this treaty-approving or treaty-rcgecting 


or treaty-amending power tbe American Senate differs from 
other foreign bodies of similar rank. Thereby it becomes an 
important factor in national diplomacy. This exercise of its 
functions has often covered the Senate with opprobrium. 
Sometimes its verdict has seemed at variance with the x>opular 
will. Nevertheless this Senatorial power is a precious safe- 
guard of our political life. The cosmopolitan nature of the 
Senate invests its decisions with peculiar authority. Let us 
rejoice that in its chamber sit to-day men trained in the classic 
halls of Bowdoin and Dartmouth and Princeton and Harvard 
and Tale. Let us likewise rejoice with equal fervor that 
beside them sit other men, trained in the larger college of the 
farm, the factory, and the counting-house, and that to them all 
equally every treaty of arbitration, of alliance, of peace, must 
be submitted for final arbitrament. And we may furthermore 
rejoice that, by the wise provision of our fathers, in that 
august assembly the opulent States and the cultured States 
and the historic States count no more than the stalwart 
though newly born States of the West. 

Do we appear to dwell too long on events in the childhood 
of the Eepublic t 

It would be an agree&ble task to trace the history of Ameri- 
can diplomacy, decade by decade, year by year, down to the 
present time. It is not difficult to prove that there has been 
no degeneracy in it since those heroic days. The same prin- 
ciples have governed appointment. The results are to be 
measured by the same yardstick of success or failure. And 
until the last few months the peculiar difficulties our earlier 
envoys encountered have been experienced by their suc- 
cessors. Without fixed abodes, without imposing retinues, 
without navies or armies at their call, they have filled their 
mission 3,000, 5,000, 10,000 miles from the motherland. 
Meanwhile in efficiency, in integrity, in ability, they have 
stood the equals of their foreign colleagues in royal and 
imperial courts to which the x>ower and the prowess of the 
American Union seemed a myth. 

Take the list of our Secretaries of State during the last one 
hundred and nine years. Put in contrast with them the line 
of similar officials in any country under the sun. Neither 
Great Britain nor France nor Russia can present an equal 
idle. Jefferson, Marshall, John Quincy Adams, Clay, Web- 
ster, Oalhoon, Everett, Mar(;y, Gass, Seward, Fish, Blaine, 
J. W. Foster, Bichard Olney. Other Secretaries of State of 


equal political distinction might be named, bat I am recount- 
ing the paladins of diplomacy. 

Take from any nation the list of its envoys who have graced 
our Capitol at Washington. Then place beside them, man for 
man, the envoys whom we have sent to that same nation. 
While we honor the talents and the distinction which these 
foreign gentlemen have often shown, it is no disparagement to 
them to acknowledge that our representatives abroad have 
been at least their peers. Whom have we sent to England! 
Pinckney, Kufns King, John Quincy Adams, Gallatin, Everett, 
Bancroft, Dallas, Charles Francis Adams, Motley, Lowell, 
Phelps, John 11 ay, Joseph 11. Ohoate, and others of scarcely 
inferior capacity and fame. There are names on the English 
list which we pronounce with respect, sometimes almost min- 
gled with affection ; but do they overshadow this illustrious 
roll? Sir Stratford Canning; Lord Napier; Sir Edward Thorn- 
ton, the gentle and chivalric; Lord Lyons, who has left a 
knightly memory not only at Washington, but at Athens, 
Florence, Constantinople, and Paris; the present genial Brit- 
ish ambassador, Sir Julian Pauncefote; Sir Edward Bulwer 
Lytton, by far the ablest, but deservedly the least honored of 
them all. 

A New York paper said six weeks ago, "Probably the next 
minister to England will be a hack politician, neither intelli- 
gent nor experienced." Such expressions, careless and base- 
less, are frequent. How many times have we sent to England a 
man to whom the term "hack politician" could by any possibil- 
ity be applied 1 But there is no better training for the real busi- 
ness of European diplomacy than the practical school of Amer- 
ican politics. It is a better training than is afforded by the 
inherited blood of an ambassadorial line or by the partiality of 
a prince or by the routine from childhood in the monotony of 
oflHce. Abraham Lincoln had been diplomaed in no other 
school when in the crucial days of the civil war he baffled the 
machinations of Napoleon III and curbed the arrogance of 
Lord Palmerstop. But we can not forget that the same type 
of men and the same class of critics sneered at and derided 
Abraham Lincoln then who sneer at and deride American 
diplomacy and most things American now. 

I make no claim that our diplomatic service is i>erfect or 
that all American foreign ministers have been saints or sages. 
No nation's history resembles the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, 


on whicb only victories are carved. Sometimes we have had 
inefficient men, who have been worsted in diplomatic encoun- 
ter. Sometimes we have had timid, shuffling men, who sought 
success by pliability. None the less, directness, frankness, 
honesty, tact, have been traits of the great majority from the 
day of Washington and Jefferson to our own. What General 
Woodford said of himself was the record of his colleagues, both 
the living and those under the sod. Said he, <^ In conformity 
with the traditional diplomatic policy of the United States, 
when your minister reached Spain he was absolutely direct 
and frank in his dealing.'' Or, as Judge Chamberlain wrote of 
John Adams, *^ His path went straight to its object, and his 
movements in it were simple and direct.'^ 

Moreover, in scholarly culture our diplomatic representatives 
as a body have surpassed those of any other land. No foreign 
country has summoned to its diplomatic and also to its con- 
sular service such a host of historians, political economists, 
poets, orators, journalists, jurists, educators, and writers of 
every class. The complete enumeration of our ministers and 
consuls first famous in literature would more than fill my 
allotted time. 

William H. Prescott, Caleb Cushiug, John Marshall, Henry 
Wheaton, Donald G. Mitchell, Charles Emory Smith, John 
Lothrop Motley, John Hay, George Bancroft, General Lew 
Wallace, James Russell Lowell, Bayard Taylor, W. D. How- 
ells, Bret Harte, Samuel Sullivan Cox, Washington Irving, 
Nathaniel Hawthorne. Every person here can indefinitely 
prolong but not exhaust the teeming list. 

The Author's Club has on its roll 152 names; but no polit- 
ical club of the country, whether municipal or state, has so 
many of its members to-day in high diplomatic station. Among 
them are : 

Arthur S. Hardy, minister to Persia; Oscar S. Straus, min- 
ister to the Sublime Porte; Andrew D. White, ambassador to 
Germany; General Horace Porter, ambassador to France. 

No marvel that in the foreign mind to an American legation 
attaches something of the aroma and renown of American 
authorship and learning. 

Any discussion of this subject is incomplete which does not 
recognize the ability in diplomacy displayed to eminent degree 
by the officers of our Navy. Their names, synonyms of suc- 
cessful daring through a hundred years upon the oceans and 


the lakes, are no less synonymoas with skillflil negotiation and 
tact. In 1815, Commodore Decatar in the Bay of Algiers; in 
1854, Commodore Perry in the Oalf of Yedo; in 1867, Admiral 
Farragnt in his European visit on the flagship Franklin; in 
1898, Commodore Dewey in Manila Bay. 
/The European diplomatist still inhabits a half-mediaeval cas> 
tie, almost impregnable to criticism and difficult of access 
except to a privileged few. The American diplomatist lives 
in a glass house, wheire he may not only be seen but stoned. 
The European diplomatist is hedged around by privacy and 
reserve and traditional customs, like his queen or his kaiser or 
his tzar. The American diplomatist is merely an American 
citizen, but occupied with public life and resident abroad ; his 
doors always open to all, like his President's in the White 
House. Because of this publicity of life, and because each 
compatriot feels a proprietorship in his representative, the 
envoy is exposed to countless demands which the average 
European would never dream of addressing to his diplomatic 
agent. And these demands, announced by telegraph, mailbag, 
personal interview, even telephone, do not confine themselves 
to purely official duties, but range over the whole gamut of 
human experience or desire^ I am acquainted with one Amer- 
ican minister who received a letter from a fellow-countryman 
asking for information as to the best manner of setting hens. 
I know another minister from whom another fellow-country- 
man solicited an original receipt for making hair dye. I recall 
still another minister to whom a lady wrote beseeching him to 
send her a bottle of Persian water, which she had heard 
would prevent wrinkles and old age. By a pathetic coincidence, 
this letter came from Florida, where Ponce de Leon and the 
romance of the sixteenth century sought the fountain of per- 
petual youth. A jovial editor iu Texas started a story that the 
remains of the ark had been discovered on the top of Mount 
Ararat. His humorous soul must have gloated at the hun- 
dreds of epistles, earnest for details, which quickly started 
from the United States to the American legations in St. Pe- 
tersburg, Constantinople, and Teheran. <' That is the fortieth 
letter I have received about the remains of the ark,*' exclaimed 
an afflicted envoy, *' and I wish Noah and his ark had been 
sunk when the rest of the world was." An English news- 
paper once referred to a drawing room of Her Majesty as an 
American function, inasmuch as the wife of an American min- 


ister had presented such a blooming bevy of her country- 
women. Whenever the Soltau makes his official prayer, in the 
reserved rooms to witness the ceremony are generally gathered 
a larger number of Americans than of all the other foreigners 
united. Equally the permit for the presentation at Marlbor- 
ough House or for the Ottoman Selamlik must be solicited and 
obtained by the American legation. To every request which 
an American representative receives, not only a courteous but 
a satisfactory answer must he accord. Otherwise, woe betides 
his fame in this laud of free tongue and free press. 

In view of impatient and disappointed correspondents — nor 
am I speaking chiefly of correspondents of the press — I wonder 
sometimes that auy American minister retains a shred of good 
reputation when he returns to his native country. I was once 
in the office of an American minister when he received two 
bulky packages by mail. One package was from the Depart- 
ment of State at Washington. It contained the copy of a 
complaint against the minister for insufficiency and neglect of 
duty in a certain important matter, and formally demanded his 
recall. It was numerously signed by names well known and 
eminently worthy of respect. The other package contained a 
document, dated eleven weeks later, addressed directly to the 
minister and signed by the same worthy names. It expressed 
the warmest gratitude for the successful termination of the mat- 
ter referred to in the first document, and especially commended 
the minister for the energy and ability he had displayed. 
There was nothing surprising or underhanded in the coexist- 
ence of these two communications, though of so different spirit 
and tenor. Weary impatience of delay in a tedious suit had 
prompted the first letter. Delight at its happy termination 
had prompted the second. The writers were honest in both. 
But justice is not always so speedily done. There are men in 
America to-day who have held high diplomatic rank, who have 
discharged all its obligations faithfully and well, but who 
have received little except defamation and abuse in return for 
their fidelity and deserts. 

Judge Baldwin, in his Modern Political Institutions, speaks 
of that ^' long line of diplomatic precedent which has made 
the voice of the President, as to foreign relations, the only 
recognized expression of the sovereign will of the United 
States." So it may be said that each successive President 
has been the incarnation and his words the formal utterance 


of Americaa diplomacy. As in this larger day the nations 
listen to catch the accents and to apprehend the spirit of the 
Western State that has revealed itself among them, it is the 
President, his utterance, his bearing, his entire demeanor, 
which they heed. I am not speaking now of partisan x)olicy 
or sectional aspiration or prejadice. However large the tribute 
which he deserves in other fields, I am now referring to the 
President in his rank as the supreme diplomatist of the land 
and his capacity as embodiment of its diplomacy. As one 
relives these last months, passed in the suspense of imminent 
war, in the strain and agony of uncertain battle, in the delir- 
ium of unmeasured victory, he can recall no word or act of 
President McKinley in his diplomatic relations which has not 
been worthy of his exalted office. Whatsoever the party to 
which we belong or the section of this broad land from which 
we hail, well may we, in the emergencies of the hour, rally 
round the President. 

Yre victis has it been always. Yet, while American diplo- 
macy under his direction with a firm hand grasps the fruits 
of a hard-fought, well-earned victory, it, contrary to all the 
practice of all European states, extorts no pecuniary indem- 
nity from the conquered, but tenders a sum which would once 
have been deemed fabulous to the helpless and friendless foe. 

I am well aware that many are clamorous for the adoption 
of what is called the European system of diplomacy. It is 
supposed to oiler a large career, to insure greater permanence 
in position, and to possess higher efficiency than our own. By 
the light of experience and not by the uncertain flicker of 
theory must any such claim be proved. Take a single example. 
Oonstantinople, more than any other city, is the sensitive point 
of Great Britain. To it she pays more assiduous heed than to 
any other capital. And yet, since 1861, of British ambassa- 
dors and American ministers to the Sublime Porte it is the 
British representatives who have been changed the oftener. 

An American minister occupies a peculiar position. Be is 
accredited by the President and presents his letters in his 
name. He is his direct and personal representative. Com- 
pulsion to retain the envoys of his predecessor would be un- 
fair to any incoming Chief Magistrate. It would have been 
unjust to President Cleveland had he been obliged to retain 
in office the diplomatic ministers appointed by President Har- 
rison. It would have been unjust to President McKinley were 


be obliged to retain in office tbe diplomatic ministers ap- 
pointed by President Oleveland. Only two foreign powers 
pursue a consistent, undeviating foreign policy. Those are 
Great Britain and Bussia. Liberal may succeed Conservative 
in the one and Nicholas II follow Alexander III in the other 
and domestic matters fluctuate like the tides, but the foreign 
policy goes on like a river, unmodified by the fall of cabinets 
and the death of tsars. In all the other States change of 
ruler is usually attended by complete change in the diplo- 
matic personnel. 

Yet America has not been all transition. William Hunter 
was Second Assistant Secretary of State for over fifty years. 
Henry Wheaton represented America at Copenhagen and Ber- 
lin more than twenty years. G. P. Marsh was minister resi- 
dent over twenty-five years. H. G. Hall served as consul in 
Cuba and minister to Central America twenty-nine years. 
And there are others whose tenure has been equally or almost 
equally long. A secretaryship of legation may be a position 
for life. 

One wonders how oar commencement graduates can find 
place in the already overcrowded professions of law, medicine, 
and divinity; and yet, as Daniel Webster said, there is always 
room up there. So is there for the American youth who wishes 
to enter diplomacy. 

Or does American diplomacy offer only an uncertain title 
and promise nothing in possibility of real accomplishment t 
Yet here the immensity of its achievement covers the whole 
nineteenth century domain of international law. It has 
broken the caste shackles of birth and successfully asserted 
the right of expatriation, a principle formerly denied by every 
foreign State. It has declared the seas and straits and conti- 
nental rivers God's highways, designed to be free for men, 
and, except as to the Thracian Bosphorus, has won the assent 
of all. It has compelled the rights of neutrals to be recog- 
nized by every civilized people. Kow it is building the scaf- 
folding for another achievement no less great — the exemption 
of private property fix>m capture on sea as it is exempt from 
capture on land. 

No man having drunk old wine straightway desireth new, 
for, he saith, the old is better. David on his way to victory 
refused the brazen helmet and the sword of Saul, because he 
had not proved them. He won the duel with the weax)ons 
that he knew. 


This year as also last three famous aniversities held a 
regatta. One crew rowed with a foreign stroke, one with 
a stroke half foreign and half American, one ^ivith an Ameri- 
can stroke. The result is worthy of remembrance* I think 
some of us were there. In the van flashed the boat propelled 
by the stroke of their American sires. In honorable but not 
dangerous nearness followed the oarsmen with the stroke half 
foreign and half American; and the gallant crew whose uni- 
versity had won its share of aquatic victories, but which had 
now been taught a foreign training, was left behind. 

In diplomacy the American stroke is the stroke for us, 
whether on the Thames, the Seine, the Tiber, the Spree, the 
Neva, the Wein, or amid the islands of the China Sea; and 
that, not because of provincial prejudice or national pride, but 
because of the facts of history. 







By Hbnry £. Bournb. 

The prospect that the Senate will ratify the actiou of the 
President in negotiating the transfer of Porto Bico and the 
Philippines has aroused vague apprehensions for the future of 
our country, and has excited fears that we are not prepared 
successfully to solve the problem of controlling dependencies 
in the tropics. And these fears are not removed when it is 
explained that ever since the Louisiana purchase, to go no 
further back, the United States has had colonies, and that Con- 
gress devised a wise system of administration for them, which 
met their needs until they were ready for statehood. It can 
not be forgotten that mere distance across country, on the 
same parallels of latitude, offers no. such obstacle to normal 
expansion as distance over the seas and southward into tropical 
lands already occupied by an alien or barbarous population. 
The only instance in our territorial history of an expansion at 
all comparable to the taking of the Philippines is the acquire- 
ment of Alaska, and this possession Congress has notoriously 

The obstacle of distance, time, climate, and character of the 
population does not apply with such force to Porto Eico as to 
the Philippines; so it is the problem of the Philippines which 
chiefly needs to be illustrated. 

The eagerness of many for the acquisition of the Philippines 
can not be understood if the subject be approached, as so often 
it is, solely from the point of view of our own isolated experi- 
ence, or of our constitutional development. May it not be that 
the impending event, seemingly either a blunder or the mere 
result of chance, will, in the light of subsequent experience, 
appear to have been such a step as a nation instinctively takes 
at a certain stage of its career! If there be an element of 



trath in this way of looking at the matter, we sboald consider 
oar present coarse in relation to that long series of deeds which 
has finally gained for Earope control of the world, for in a Bense 
oar national history is made np of incidents in this process. 

What an immense displacement of population and power 
separates the Earope of the sixteenth century, frightened 
because the Asiatic had penetrated to the center of the con- 
tinent, from the Europe of to-day, and yet the energy which 
has brought about this revolution has often, and ecjually in 
these last days, been iustinctiye and unreasoning! Wise men 
in each generation have condemned the aims of the empire- 
builders — the Dupleixes, the Warren Hastingses. Would it not 
be curious if we, in some ways the most remarkable product 
of this European energy, should lose the inherited venture- 
some spirit and should stand by indifferent, declining any part 
in the preseut struggle? This would be all the more surprising 
in view of the fact that under the garb of the Monroe doctrine 
we have already asserted an imperial authority in this hemi- 

It is true there are contrasts between our situation and that 
of the leaders of this struggle for expansion. Germany has 
been moved, partly at least, by the hope that her African and 
Oceanic dependencies might attract the German emigrant, 
and save him from losing his nationality in English speaking 
America. England, too, has been forced to provide for a rap- 
idly growing population. But the motive to expansion from 
surplus population has been made too much of in these discas- 
sions, as a glance at the history of the subject will show. 
And even this cause is not wholly inoperative with us also; 
for though we are not overpopulated in the European sense, 
nevertheless with each increase of population the range of 
opportunity for the individual becomes smaller; and, indeed, 
it is now ominously smaller than in the years when the great 
railroads were laid down and the public lands opened for set- 
tlement. Readjustment to new conditions is a slow process, 
and meantime the symptoms of overpopulation may appear, 
with that restlessness which makes a nation willing to begin 
the venturesome enterprise of holding dependencies. 

During the last fifteen or twenty years the rivalry between 
European peoples for the remnants of the earth has amoanted 
almost to a mania. Africa was first on the boards, but since 
1894 it has been the far east with a Fashoda interlude. The 
imi>elling motive, where it has not been an instinctive desire 


for sapremacy, is the determination of each power to have a 
foothold from which to gain a share of the wealth which these 
lands have long ponred into the lap of Europe, and which now 
the opening resources of China seem particularly to promise. 
This determination grows stronger with the accumulation of 
savings for which it becomes harder to find profitable invest- 
ments. Apparently Europe and her children conceive of the 
earth as a vast industrial opportunity. If they discover lands 
as yet unexploited, they study their resources with that per- 
sonal interest the farmer takes in some outlying field into 
which he plans to thrust his plowshare next reason. They 
devise new ways of increasing the hunger and thirst of the 
native for commodities. The naked must be clothed — to open 
a market for cottons and woolens. In the words of a distin- 
guished official, << If 8,000,000 of people in southern seas, so 
rude as not to use bedsteads, or so poor as not to be able to 
buy them, can by the stimulating influences of civilization be 
brought to desire and acquire them, by so much our problem 
is solved." This conception is all the commoner because the 
telegraph and st^eamship have brought the weak dangerously 
close to the eyes of the strong. 

Now, nowhere and at no time has the argument from physical 
force been more effectively used than in the far east, both by 
Europeans with natives and by Europeans with one another. 
It is obvious to continental statesmen that they who wish trade 
through an <<open door" must set a foot in that door. It would 
be strange if we were wholly unaffected by this sentiment and 
if it were not one of those forces drawing us irresistibly into 
the Philippine adventure. 

Up to this point I have tried simply to set our new experi- 
ence in its larger relations and to suggest a line of inquiry 
rather than to offer definite conclusions. I wish now to indi- 
cate certain European experiments in the government of de- 
pendencies which may advantageously be studied for their 
suggestiveness upon the three most important elements in the 
Philippine problem, namely, tariff charges, method of control- 
ling natives, and labor. These exx>eriments are Indo-China, 
the Malay protectorates, and Java. 

Dei)endencies, rather than colonies, should be selected, be- 
cause it is unreasonable to suppose that the Philippines, situ- 
ated in the Tropics halfway round the circle of the earth, can 
ever be colonized, in the technical sense of the word. 
HIST 98 20 


. Beyond tho fact that Indo-China, the Malay States, and 
Java are dependencies, their history is in point because they 
are at abont the same distance from England, France, and 
Holland as the Philippines are from the United States. They 
are also inhabited by races which have attained a similar stage 
of civilization. 

A tariff system for the Philippines may be devised with one 
of two aims chiefly in mind, either a revenue adequate to 
local needs, or the control of commerce for the benefit of the 
American merchant. If the latter aim were likely to find 
many advocates it would be pertinent to inquire how successful 
such efforts have been in IndoChina, which is as largely out- 
side the natural trade territory of France as the Philippines 
are outside our own. 

M. de Lanessan, himself a successful governor-general of 
Indo-China, says the aim of the law of 1892, by which the 
commerce of the French colonies is now controlled, was to 
provide <Hhat the French products be in all cases strongly 
protected and that foreign products be taxed high enough to 
keep them out so far as possible." It would be expected that 
if France sought in such a way to monopolize the trade of her 
dependencies, she \% ould have been willing to admit their prod- 
ucts to her ports on as favorable terms as she demanded of 
them for her own products. Such was not the case. Although 
she granted a differential in favor of colonial as against for- 
eign teas and coffees, still in the case of rice, the principal 
export of Oochtn-China, she was restrained by the fears of the 
French farmer, and has kept the duty high. 

Since France has been unable to manufacture and transport 
to Indo-China the goods demanded by the trade at so low a 
cost as competing producers, this tariff system has had as its 
first result a burdensome tax on colonists and natives, which 
must have retarded the development of the dependency. 

In addition to the tariff, excessive tonnage dues, and 
doubled for foreign ships, have hampered trade. Henry Nor- 
man says a little steamer on which he traveled was obliged to 
pay at Hai-Fong $302.40, while its charges at Hongkong had 
been only $4. 

Furthermore, like the English attitude toward the Ameri- 
can colonies in the eighteenth century, the French manufac- 
turer has jealously watched any attempt to set up rival plants 
in Indo-China. A great outcry was raised against De Lanes- 


Ban becaase he had encoaraged the establishment of a cotton 
mill at Ha-fToi. When he went so far as to offer prizes for the 
mannfactnre of silk, he was compelled by the colonial authori- 
ties, and at the instance of the silk interests, to withdraw the 
offer. French economists and colonists alike denounce such a 
policy as fatal to the prosi)ects of the dependency. Their pro- 
tests have led to certain modifications, which, however, are 
regarded as mere palliatives. 

It is too early to determine the full effects of this legisla- 
tion, but thus far it has not succeeded in diverting trade 
from its old channels. Moreover, an attempt at monopoly, 
which can only control one-fifth of a small commerce of 
9o6,000,000, is not an astonishing success. This showing is 
the more discouraging, because the revenue raised by taxation 
(including customs) can not be made to cover expenditures 
except by skillfully subtracting the charge for the war estab- 
lishment necessary to maintain French authority. 

So instructive an economic experiment, made over against 
the Philippines just across the China Sea, deserves something 
better tlian this rough sketch, for if the attempt be as bad a 
failure as the Frenchmen best able to judge seem to think, it 
will not be profitable for the United States to enforce the 
record of folly by another example. 

Down beyond the equator is Java, prospering under a liberal 
system of tariffs, and its history also should be studied. But 
here the problem is unusually complex, first because of the 
unique organization of labor; secondly, because Java's pros- 
perity has been recently compromised by a blight widely de- 
structive to the coffee trees. The statistics of the trade since 
1874, when the last of the old restrictions were removed, indi- 
cate that the Dutch have not seen their colonial trade seized 
by competing nations. Indeed, the trade with England has 
fallen off' heavily, while the trade with Holland itself has 

In studying the tariff systems arranged by Europe for their 
dependencies, some distinction should doubtless be made be- 
tween the attempt to control the prospective trade of an unde- 
veloped possession and the attempt to seize and divert tlie 
existing trade of a newly acquired dependency without refer- 
ence to the interests of the inhabitants. Such conduct can be 
possible only by a cynical or stupid disregard for the rights of 
persons not allowed to have a voice in the matter. It is simply 


an aucient and odious sort of << taxation without representa- 
tion." The species of representation which Cuba had in the 
Cortes and which ludo-China has in the Chamber of Deputies, 
aggravates the wrong. 

Such a dififerential tariff as France first arranged for Mada- 
gascar about two years ago is not open to as serious criticism, 
for the self-governing colonies of England seem to be moving 
toward a similar policy of strengthening the bonds of empire. 
And, within the last few months, by order in council, the prin- 
ciple of commercial union with England has been made a part 
of the fundamental law of Rhodesia. 

The career of the Dutch, English, and French in the far 
East has even a greater interest for the light it may throw 
upon the problem of administration in the Philippines. This 
problem is not everywhere the same in the Philippine Islands, 
for although the natives are principally Malays, they differ 
from one another, and esi)ecially the Moro from the Visayan, 
the Ilocano, and the Tagalog. According to Professor Wor- 
cester's description of the Sulu Sultanate, effective Spanish 
administration in Sulu has been possible only when every Moro 
who ventured armed across the ^^dead" line toward the town, 
was shot. This was in the days of the admired General Arolas. 
A successor of Arolas thought it was time to take a further 
step and to tax these fierce followers of the Prophet, but he 
and most of his soldiers were murdered for their pains. Per- 
haps for these peoi>le we shall adapt an old maxim of national 
administration and say that a '^good Moro is a dead Moro.'' 

There is one striking difference between the Philippine situ- 
ation and the situation in Indo-Chiua or Java, and this is the 
absence, except in the sultanate of Sulu, of any native au- 
thority of wide influence and of long standing. It is all the 
easier to make the blunder of organizing the local admistra- 
tion without regard to native institutions and traditions. The 
fundamental principle of the most successful European system 
of control has been to work through native authorities already 
constituted, scrupulously to respect the existing order — social, 
religions, and even the political, so far as possible — and to 
avoid wounding the susceptibilities of the inhabitants. 

No nation has had greater success in managing natives 
jealous of foreign interference than have the Dutch. Though 
hard fighters when there was fighting to be done, they have 
appreciated the blessings of the guilder more than the glories 


of barren conqaests. IJDlike the Portaguese and the Spau- 
iards, tbey interfered little with the religion of the natives, 
perhaps not from a finer sense of the rights of others. If 
occasionally the unsavory mixture of chicanery and force 
which they have employed in establishing their control over 
the natives in Java and elsewhere excites a feeling of repug- 
nance, such conduct is pleasanter to contemplate than the 
frank brutality too often displayed by others, for it is a tacit 
concession that the susceptibilities, if not the rights, of the 
inhabitants deserve respect. So carefully veiled is the rule of 
the Dutch in Java, even at the present day, that the simple- 
minded inhabitants regard themselves as ander the rule of 
their old masters, from the petty village chief or the provin- 
cial regent up to the Emperor at Snrakarta and the Sultan at 
Jokokarta. But over each province the Dutch have placed a 
resident whose advice is mandatory upon the regents. The 
natives regard the resident as the ^' elder brother" of the 
regent; and the elder brother is the autocrat of the Javanese 
household in the absence of the father. By preserving this 
innocent disguise and by bargaining with each new regent as 
he succeeds to power, a comparatively small body of Dutch 
officials has been able to control the most densely peopled 
land in the world. 

No such mechanism of administration could be managed by 
officials selected because of their success in keeping x)olitical 
factions in line at home. It is by rigidly excluding the possi- 
bility of appointment to colonial positions on other grounds 
than those of training and fitness that a remarkable adminis- 
trative personnel has been created. Assuredly we can learn a 
lesson here from the Dutch as well as from the English in 
their organization of the India civil service, which is more 
frequently referred to. Both rest practically on the same 

The young Dutchman who is ambitious for a colonial career 
is trained at Delft, or at Leiden, or at Batavia. His course of 
study is shaped so that he may be fitted for the particular 
function which he is to x>erform. Before he may reach the 
higher posts he must pass through examinations upon the 
^^history, geography, and ethnology of the Indies, their laws 
civil and religious, the political institutions and customs of the 
natives, the Malay and Javanese languages." If a candidate 
desires to become a magistrate, he must be master not only of 


the colonial law, bat also of the Mohammedan law. Nor, after 
he has passed the examinations and entered the service as a 
salaried official, is he immediately intmsted with responsibil- 
ities. He must first, if on the lowest round of the administra- 
tive ladder^ serve a sort of apprenticeship nnder one of the 
controllers or assistant residents. As he climbs from one step 
to another he is sure of being well paid for the risks he rans 
from the tropical climate, and of finally being retired on a gen- 
erous pension. 

Earlier in the century, when the Dutch regarded Java too 
exclusively under the aspect of an exhaustless supply for the 
necessities of the home Government, the officials were ready 
to wink at the oppressions of the native chiefs through whom 
they ruled, if only these chiefs turned over the supplies of 
coffee and sugar required; but recently another spirit has 
taken possession of the Dutch administration, and the exploi- 
tation of Java is becoming a matter of history. 

The English in the protected Malay States have employed 
the same system of veile<l authority with equal effectiveness^ 
Nominally, the British resident is only an adviser of the Malay 
Sultan, and there is a council of state in which authority is 
supposed to reside, but the word of the resident is law. And 
yet, as the resident keeps in the background, the oriental is 
able to ''save his face," which soothes his susceptibilities, even 
if it does not altogether reconcile him to the loss of power. 

Two reasons have kept the French fiom becoming equally 
successful in the management of the affairs in Indo-China. 
There are not lacking men in France who appreciate the 
importance of the considerations which have weighed with 
the Dut<*h. But political turbulence at home has made the 
colonial policy often shifting and inconsequent, if not careless 
and ignorant. Moreover, the necessity of supplying places 
for ofiice seekers has been a factor for evil. 

To illustrate the first, the French Protectorate in Oambodia 
was left so badly organized for the first twenty years of its 
existence that the native king was able to thwart the purposes 
of the resident continually. Finally the colonial authorities 
determined radically to alter the conditions of French control 
and forced upon the king the convention of 1884, which Leroy- 
Beaulieu characterizes as in effect '* making the feudal society 
over into a democracy at once, although six centuries had been 
required in France for this transformation and although 


Orientals profess a reverence both touching and tenacious for 
tradition and for mores majorum." There could be only one 
result. Before the end of the year the country was in a state 
of anarchy. The natives fled to the forests to escape rebel 
chiefs and French troops alike, and no progress could be made 
toward establishing good order until the obnoxious treaty was 
rescinded. A few years later, without auy display of force or 
even a formal agreement, De Lanessan was able to gain from 
the king every concession needed for the effectiveness of the 
Protectorate by carefully working through the native authori- 
ties, and not ignoring them or violating their traditional 

The mistake of the French in Oambodia was one of those 
typical blunders likely to be made by x>eople so enamored of 
their own institutions and their achievements as to be quite 
forgetful or contemptuous of the point of view of the natives, 
upon whom they propose to force the blessings of civilization, 
at the point of the bayonet if need be. 

The second reason for French failure has, as already stated, 
grown out of the necessity of finding places for office seekers 
and young men anxious to wear the uniform of a functionary. 
From this it has resulted that many places which might have 
been filled by natives are held by Frenchmen at an expendi- 
ture burdensome to the resources of the dependency. Even 
the keeper of the Hanoi cemetery has been a Frenchman, who, 
in addition to his salary, receives his expenses out to Tonkin 
and back. Indeed the larger part of the colonial population 
is made up of office holders, and many of the rest are contrac- 
tors. The French under secretary of state for the colonies 
exclaimed in the chamber of deputies in 1890, <<Of the 80,000 
francs appropriated this year for the public works in Cochin- 
China, what do you think is allotted to salaries in the public- 
works department t It is 80,000 francs — 80,000 francs in salar- 
ies out of 80,000 francs worth of public works." Evidently 
here is a state of things which, allowing for the exaggeration 
incident to a controversy, would be hard to equal in the depend- 
encies of any other country except Spain. 

The labor problem in the Philippines is not less difficult than 
the administrative problem. Like all people in the tropics the 
Filipinos are disinclined to hard work. Professor Worcester 
says: "TheaverageVisayan, with acoupleof bushels of shelled 
corn or a caban of rice in the house and a bit of dry fish for 


dessert, wisely lies od the floor, smokes his cigarette, thmms 
his guitar, and composes extemporary songs on current events." 
What is true of the Yisayans is true of the others, with the 
exception of two or three tribes living on less favored islands. 
But for the tribute exacted by the Spanish Government up to 
1884, and the personal taxes levied since that time, the natives 
would have been even less industrious than they are. 

The experiment of the Dutch in Java, called the culture 
system, has been the most successful attempt to turn the 
native of the tropics into an energetic producer. It rested on 
the corvee, or labor tax, the right to which the Dutch inher- 
ited from those they supplanted. Although this phase of 
Dutch rule in Java has had its eulogists and its critics, the 
fact remains that the Dutch have been obliged by public opin- 
ion at home, tirst to modify the system and then largely to 
abandon it. Even the coffee lands, its last refuge, are now 
passing out of government control. But it can throw little 
light upon the Philippine problem, in spite of the fact that 
under the Spanish rule the right to exact labor has been pre- 
served. The corvee there has not, however, called for so many 
days of labor and, except to some extent in the tobacco indus- 
try, the Spanish officials seem to have found it chiefly valuable 
as a means for filling their pockets. 

There is one factor in the labor problem in the east which 
offers a solution and this is the Chinese. They emigrate freely, 
they are industrious, and, under wise management, peaceable 
or at least controllable. The French have tried to keep them 
out by heavy taxes; the poll tax on the Asiatic ranging from 
$7 to $80. Judging from other European experiences, this 
tax is suggested by prejudice rather than by a just view of 
the needs of the situation. A Chinese exclusion act, which 
may be an advantage to the Pacific States, in the far eastern 
tropics is out of place. 

Undoubtedly there are other experiments in the control of 
dependencies which are worth careful study that the Philip- 
pine problem may be set in the full light of experience, but 
certainly the study of that great region, of which ethnologically 
and historically as well as geographically these islands form a' 
part, deserves the serious attention of thoughtful Americans 
at the present time. 









By SiMXOK £. Baldwin. 

In one of the papers read at the meeting of this Association 
held at Chicago in connection with the Golnmbian Exposition 
in 1893, it was predicted that 'Hhe North American Continent, 
with every island on the east, and the Hawaiian groap npon 
the west, all bound to it as satellites to their planet, will, if we 
continue in our historic policy as to annexation, eventually 
come under the flag of the United States."^ 

The last year has made Hawaii ours, and a treaty is pending 
for ratification under which a cession is made of Porto Bico 
and the Philippines, while Cuba is surrendered into our pos- 
session under circumstances which it is not impossible may 
lead eventually to our assumption there of absolute sover- 

Whether the treaty should be ratified by the Senate is a 
question of a political character, with the discussion of which 
this Association has no concern. It may, however, properly 
endeavor to contribute what aid it can in tracing the historical 
course of constitutional construction and judicial decision as 
to the x>ower to acquire such territory and, when acquired, to 
govern and dispose of it. 

The United States have now for nearly a century been study- 
ing out for the benefit of the world a new problem in politics. 
It is that presented by a Federal Government, formed for a 
broad land and a great people, under a written Constitution 
which makes it a nation for certain purposes, when it reaches 
out into other lands and over dther peoples and seeks to incor- 
porate them into itself. Eome and England i n developing their 
colonial systems had no paper limitations to contend with. 

1 B«port of the Amerioan Historical Association for 1888, p. 388. 



Are those to which we are subjected to be help or hindrance 
in working out our destiny and holding our proper place among 
the great powers of the modem world t 

It is a difficult thing for the men of one age to lay down 
conditions of political existence for those of the next. The 
framers of the Constitution of the United States knew this so 
well that they were careful to make it brief, and to leave its 
character and effect largely to be wrought out by practical 
construction and ])ublic sentiment. Particularly was this true 
of what they did toward providing for the regulation of such 
territory as the United States might possess outside the limits 
of any particular State. 

Experience had already taught a useful lesson on that sub- 
ject. In 1784 the Congress of the Confederation had adopted 
certain principles and rules to determine the government and 
future political cond i tion of the Northwestern Territory. These 
provided for the ultimate division of it into States, whose 
boundaries were fixed by lines of latitude and longitude, and 
it was declared that the several articles should constitute a 
'^charter of compact," and *' stand as ftindamental constitu- 
tions between the thirteen original States and each of tbe sev- 
eral States now newly described, unalterable from and after 
the sale of any part of the territory of such State pursuant to 
this resolve, but by the joint consent of the United States in 
Congress assembled and of the particular State within which 
such alteration is proposed to be made."^ Three years later, 
however, this act was repealed, and another scheme adopted, 
making radically different provision as to the number and 
boundaries of the new States to be formed out of this terri- 
tory, and the conditions of statehood. This <^ ordinance of 
1787" also stated certain principles and rules of government 
which, it declared, should be '* articles of compact between the 
original States and the people and States in the said territory, 
and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent." 
It was passed while the constitutional convention was in ses- 
sion. Eleven of the members of that body were also in Con- 
gress. Three of them sat in it and voted on the adoption of 
the ordinance; two, Blount, of North Carolina, and Few, of 
Georgia, in its favor, and one, Chief Justice Tates, of New 
York, against it, he being the only member of Congress who 

I Joarr'is of CongrMs, IX^ 106. 


was coanted in the negative.^ Among the other eight men 
who belonged to both bodies were Madison, Sherman, John- 
son, and King. It would have been no difficalt task for them 
to have carried through the convention a proposition to make 
this ^^analterable" ordinance, adopted by the United States 
in July, a part of the new constitution which was to be put 
before the United States in the following September. That 
they did not attempt it showed their good sense. They saw, 
more clearly than Congress had, that to lay down rigid rules 
governing the rise and growth of new States, within a vast 
stretch of territory, for all time, was unwise, if not imprac- 
ticable. They left the ordinance of 1787 to be dealt with by 
the United States under their second constitution, as the ordi- 
nance of 1784 had been dealt with under their first— as a meas- 
ure of ordinary legislation. It was recognized as in force in 
1789' by the first Congress under the new administration, and 
at the same time so amended as to adapt it to the new condi- 
tion of things incident to the creation of the office of President 
of the United States. Thenceforth it continued to exercise a 
controlling influence in shaping the traditions and usages of 
the ftontier settlements, which afterwards spread into great 
States; but it had no constitutional character.^ 

The United States are, for certain purposes, a nation, and 
however limited those purposes, they must have, so far as 
those limits go, every power which is fairly incidental to national 

One of these purposes is the conduct of all the foreign rela- 
tions of the American people, whether in war or peace. Mar- 
shall therefore, when the question of territorial expansion 
came before the courts,^ had no difficulty in confirming, as inci- 
dental to the Executive power, what his great adversary in 
national politics, Jefferson, had at first hesitated to claim as a 
right, the prerogative of acquiring new territory either by 
oonqaest or cession from a foreign power. 

The legislative department had not shared in Jefferson's 
doubts. The Louisiana purchase was a political event of far 
greater importance to the country than any of those which 
have marked the year 1898. It gave rise to animated discus- 
sion in both Houses of Congress, but it may fairly be said 

> Joamals of Conereas, XII, 93. 

• Act of Aagust 7, 1789. 

*Stnider v. Grahain, 10 How., 82, 96. 

* American losuranoe Co. v. Canter, 1 Peters's Keports, 533, 


that neither of the great parties of the day pat iu qaestioii 
the right of the President and Senate to make the treaty^ and 
so bring the vast territory which it embraced nnder the sov- 
ereignty of the United States. The controverted points were, 
first, the policy of the measure, and, second, the nature of the 
relation created between the inhabitants whose allegiance was 
transferred and the soil itself, on the one hand, and the United 
States on the other. It was claimed by some in debate to 
bring them under the flag but not into the Union; to make the 
people subjects rather than citizens, and the land on which 
they dwelt the property of our Government, but no part, prop- 
erly speaking, of the United States. We could hold it, they 
said, and control it as any man can hold and control a farm 
which he has bought, by right of proprietorship, to be kept or 
sold, tilled or left fallow, at pleasure: it was, in short, a proper 
field for a strictly colonial government. A few asserted that 
the United States could set up no laws anywhere that were 
not founded on the consent of the governed.* 

The question thus debated in the fall of 1803 was a practical 
and pressing one. France had appointed in June a commis- 
sioner to deliver possession, and was anxious to get the pur- 
chase money into her treasury. The people who were the 
subject of the transfer were uneasy and dissatisfied. Expe- 
dition was necessary. If in the presence of such conditions 
all political parties were in agreement as to the main doc- 
trine to be applied, the precedent as a record of legislative 
construction on a point of constitutional law is of all the more 

The act of Congress of October 31, 1803, passed by large 
majorities in each house to meet the case, was a brief one. It 
gave the President carte blanche. He was authorized to take 
possession and occupy, using such force as might be necessary 
to maintain the authority of the United States, and calling out 
not exceeding 80,000 of the State militia if he thought proper. 
Then followed this plenary grant of general authority: 

Tbaty until the expiration of the preHent session of Congress, udIsm 
provision for the temporary government of the said territories be sooner 
made by Congress^ all the military, civil, and Judicial powers exercised 
by the officers of the existing government of the same, shall be vested in 
snch person and persons, and shall be exercised in such manner as the 
President of the United States shall direct, for maintaining and protect- 

I The deb»t«« aro well eauimariied In Adams^ Hist, of the United SUtea, II, 100-115. 


log the inbabitsnto of Loaisiana in the free enjoyment of their liberty, 
property, and religion. 

Jefferson immediately dispatched commissioners to New 
Orleans to receive the surrender of possession, and invested 
one of them, Ooveroor Olaiborne, of the Territory of Missis- 
sippi, with all the powers theretofore exercised over the 
Louisiana territory by the governor-general and intendant 
under the authority of Spain. This made him a temporary 
king, and constituted the system of government under which 
Louisiana remained until October of the following year. 

The governor-general, under the laws and usages of Spain, 
had almost royal authority. He promulgated ordinances which 
had the force of a statute. He appointed and removed at 
pleasure commandants over each local subdivision of terri- 
toryJ He presided over the highest court. The intendant, 
however, was a counterpoise. He was chief of the depart- 
ments of finance and commerce. He acted as a comptroller- 
general, on whose warrant only could payments be made from 
the treasury.' He was also judge of the courts of admiralty 
and exchequer. Both these offices Jefferson put in the hands 
of one man. 

Judicial proceedings were conducted in the forms of the 
civil law. A son, whose father was living, could not sue with- 
out bis consent, nor persons belonging to a religious order 
without that of their superior.^ He who reviled the Savior or 
the Virgin Mary had his tongue cut out and his property 
confiscated.^ A married woman convicted of adultery and her 
paramour were to be delivered up to the will of the husband, 
with the reserve, however, that if he killed one he must kill 

All travelers, previous to circulating any news of importance, 
were bound to relate it to the syndic of the district, who might 
forbid it to go farther if he thought such prohibition would be 
for the public good." 

There was a religious establishment. Two canons and 
twenty-five curates received salaries from the public treasury.^ 

A considerable code of laws, of which those to which I have 
referred are not unfair examples, was thus left to be adminis- 

* Pab. Doc. 8th Cong. An Accoant of Lonisiana, beinf: an Abstraot of Docomenta in 
the Offices vt the Department of State, and of the Treaanry, Nov., 1803, 39, 40. 

* An Aooonnt of Loniaiana, etc., 33, 41. 
•Ibid.. App. XXVIU. 

«Ibid.,XLV. "Ibid., XL VI. •Ibid.,LXXI. Ubid.,38. 


tered or superseded and replaced by others, for an ancertain 
period, at the will of oue man, an agent of the executive power. 

The Federalists in Congress, while willing, if not anxious 
that Louisiana should be governed as a colonial dependence, 
objected to the passage of this act on the ground that it set 
up a despotism incompatible with the Constitution, The 
answer of the leaders of the party in power was that Congress 
had an authority in the Territories which it had not in the 
States, and that the United States were acting in the rightful 
capacity of sovereigns, precisely as Spain and France had 
acted before themj 

In the case decided by Chief Justice Marshall, twenty-five 
years later, to which allusion has already been made, that of 
the American Insurance Company against Canter, the counsd 
for the defendant, one of whom was Daniel Webster, claimed 
in argument that the Constitution and laws of the United 
States did not extend over Florida upon its cession by Spain. 
The usages of nations, they said, had never conceded to the 
inhabitants of either conquered or ceded territory a right to 
participate in the privileges of the constitution of the country 
to which their allegiance ha^ been transferred. Congress 
might therefore govern them at its will.' The court, in its 
opinion, went with them to a certain point, but no further. 
Marshall declared that these inhabitants, though made by the 
treaty of cession citizens of the United States, acquired no 
right to share in political power, and also that the provision 
of the Constitution that the judicial power of the United States 
should be vested in courts of a certain description did not 
apply to such courts as Congress had provided for Florida. 
His argument on this, the turning iK)int of the case, was hardly 
worthy of so great a judge. No reference was made to the 
necessary correlation between the legislative and the judicial 
powers which he had expounded so luminously a few years 
before in the case of the United States Bank.^ The Constitu- 
tion, he said, required that the judges of the courts, which it 
contemplated, should hold office for good behavior. The act of 
Congress for the government of the Territory of Florida set up 
courts the judges of which were to hold office only for four 
years. Therefore the Constitution did not apply to them. 

1 Adama's Hiit., II. 119. 

n Peten's Roi>orto, 583, 588. 

"Osborn v. Bank of the X'Oitea Statec, 9 Wbeaton's Keporto, 788, 


What were they, theu? Legislative coarts, not exercising 
any of the judicial power conferred by the people in the grant 
made and defined in the third article of the Constitution, but 
having a jurisdiction ^^ conferred by Congress in the execution 
of those general powers which that body possesses over the 
TeiTitoriesof the United States." * * • *< In legislating for 
them Congress exercises the combined powers of the General 
and of a State government." 

The clause of the Constitution which gives Congress ^^ power 
to make all needful rules and regulations resi)ecting the terii- 
tory or other property of the United St^vtes," is not found in 
the first article, which deals with the general legislative ix)w- 
ers granted by the people and vested in Congress. It was 
inserted in the fourth, in which, after the legislative, execu- 
tive, and judicial powers had been separately dealt with, »re 
gathered together certain rules to govern the relations of the 
States to each other, the character of their government, and 
the privileges of their citizens; and the place assigned it 
(section 3) is in immediate and significant connection with 
the provision as to the admission of new States. It came from 
the skillful pen of Gouverneur Morris, and was adopted by the 
Constitutional Convention after a protracted debate as to 
the expediency of putting every new State formed out of the 
Western territory on a position of equality with the old thirteen.' 
His letters tell us that he was fuDy alive to the possibilities of 
indefinite territorial expansion, <^ knowing then," he wrote at 
the time of the Louisiana purchase, ^^as well as I do now, that 
all North America must at length be annexed to us — happy, 
indeed, if the lust of possession stop tliere.'^' The convention 
was sitting under a governnieut whose constitution provided^ 
that ^^ Canada, acceding to this confederation and joining in 
the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into and 
entitled to all the advantages of this union." There weie 
already considerable settlements outside the limits of any 
State, but within those of the United States. Mr. Gorham had 
said on the floor, during the preceding mouth, that Kentucky, 
Vermont, the Province of Maine, and Franklin would probably 
soon be added as new States.^ Franklin was already claiming 
to be one, and had had a constitution and set of public officers 
of her own choosing since 1785; nor did the course of legisla- 

■ Klliott'a Debates. V, 492-497. ' Arlicles of CoufederatioD. Art. XI. 

> Morria'8 Diary and Works, II, 442. * fiUiott's Debates. V , 356. 493. 

HIST 98 21 


tion on which she ]ia<l embarked encourage reliance ou tbe 
good sense of our outlying Territories to govern themselves*' 

It was in the face of such social conditions— of Franklin 
resisting the authority of North Carolina, and Vermont resist- 
ing that of New York and Ne\7 Hampshire, in the same siririt 
that led to the cry of "squatter sovereignty" during the clos- 
ing year^ of the long struggle against slavery in the territo- 
ries — that the convention of 1787 was led by Morris to tuck 
away in this obscure corner of the Constitution a grant which, 
as interpreted by the courts, was to give Congress almost abso- 
lute rule over thousands and perhaps millions of men. 

The other legislative powers granted by the people, so far at 
least as the express terms of the Constitution are concerned, 
are either limited in scope or else confined to some narrow field 
of operation. The right to regulate the Territories, so far as 
may be "needful," is given with no other definition of its 
bounds; and wiio but Congress is to say how far that need 
extends? As to them, Congress has, and it was meant by 
Morris that it should have,' every power incident to an inde- 
pendent sovereignty, unless limitations are to be read into tlie 
grant from its collocation, and by force of the fundamental 

> In ono of Webster's speeches in the Senate (Webster's Speecbott, ed. of 1850, III, 357) 
he read what profeHsed to bo one of the last eunctmenta of the Statu of Franklin. It was 
as follows : 

" Be it enacted by the general assembly of tbe State of Franklin, and It is hereby 
enactoil by the Authority of the samo, That from the first day of January, A. D. 1789, the 
salaries of the civil oiUcors of this Commonwealth be as follows, to wit: Hia excellency 
the goventoriier annum, ono thousand deerskins : his honor the chief Justice, 6ve )iud- 
drexl deerskins; the attorney-general, five hundivd deerskins ; secretary to his excellency 
the governor. Ave hundred raccoon skins; the treasurer of the State, four hundred and 
iifty otter skina; each county clerk, three hundred beaver skins, clerk of tbe house of 
commons, two hundred raccoon nkins; members of assembly per diem, three raccoon 
skins; Justice's fee for signing a warrant, one muskrat skin; to the oouetable for serving 
a warrant, one mink skin. 

"£nacted into a law this 18th day of October, 1788, under tbe great seal of the Stat^. 

" Witness his excellency, &,c. 

— — I 

** Governor^ Oaptain-GeneraZ, (-otMnander in Chit/, and 

Admiral in and over mid State.'* 

The records of the Franklin legiHlature were never otlicially published, except by beiUK 
read aloutl in oacli county at tlie opening of the next county court, and it ia probable that 
no statute in this pn^ciHo form was ever passed, or, indeed, any statute of so late a date. 
(Haywood's Civil and Political Hist, of Tonn., 181, 194, 200, 206.) In 1785, however, one quite 
similar in etlect was adopted, under which salaries wore payable " In kind" and at prices 
as follows: " Cased otter skins, shillings; uncased utter skins, 5 shillhiga; raccoon and 
fux sliiuH, 1 ahilling and 3 pence; " • * * "good distilled rye whisky, 2 shillings and 
6 pence i>er gallon; good peach or apple brandy at 3 shillings per gallon," * * * "or 
in current money of the State of Franklin." (Haywood's Hist., 163, 164; Kaoisey's Hist, 
of Tonn., 297, 379.) 

» ScoU V. Sand ford, 19 Howard's Keport, 507. 


principles on which the whole Gonstitutiou rests, or of certain 
of its general prohibitions and guaranties. 

The judicial powers granted to the courts of the United 
States are carefully enumerated, and cover comparatively few 
of the ordinary controversies that become the subject of liti- 
gation. Those which Congress can put in the hands of its 
deputies for the Territories extend over the whole domain of 

The executive power of the United States alone stands as 
to the Territories on the same footing which it occupies as 
respects the States. Congress may create Territorial offices, 
but it can not fill them. Appointments must come from an- 
other source, and, so far at least as the leading positions are 
concerned, are ineffectual until commissions are signed by the 
President.* Probably also he has a power of removal at will, 
even of the judges.^ Certainly he has a far greater preroga- 
tive. Until Congress acts for the regulation of any particular 
Territory which the United States may acquire, the President 
is under the constitutional duty to see that the authority of the 
United States is recognized there and the i)eace of the United 
States maintained. If the iicquisition be by conquest, its gov- 
ernment falls to him from the first as the commander in chief 
of the national forces. If it be by treaty, he must take posses- 
sion, and control it through such temporary agencies as he may 
think proper, until Congress sees fit to act.^ 

Whether there are any provisions in the Constitution, or 
principles that underly it, which operate as partial restrictions 
ui>ou the sovereign authority of Congress over the Territories, 
is a question which has repeatedly been presented to the 
Supreme Court of the United States, and to which its response 
has had a somewhat uncertain sound. In 1850, in a case turn- 
ing upon the effect of a Territorial statute in Florida, the court 
spoke thus of Territorial governments in general: 

They are legislative govemmentSi and their courts legislative courts. 
Congress, in the exercise of its powers iu the organization aud govern- 
ment of the Territories, combining the powers of both the Federal and 
State authorities. There is but one system of government, or of laws 
operating within their limits, as neither is subject to tlie constitutional 

* Const. Art. II, sec. 3. 

*McAlbster v. United States. 141 Unito<l SUtes Reports, 174,178; Parsons t>. United 
SUtes, 107 Tnitod SUtes Reports, 324, 333. 

'Fleming r. Page, 9 Howard's Reports, 602; Cross v. Robinson, 16 Howard's Reports, 


provisions in respect to State and Federal Jurisdiction. They are not or- 
ganized under tlie Constitution, nor subject to it-s complex distribution of 
the powers of government, as the organic law, but are the creations ex- 
clusively of the legislative department, and subject to its supervision 
and control. Whether or not there are provisions iu that instmment 
which extend to and act upon these Territorial goveraments, it is not now 
material to examine.' 

Tbin opinion was delivered while political discussion was 
siiil rife as to whether Congress could prohibit slavery in the 
Territories. The Mexican war had stretched our boundaries 
to the Pacific. The Wilmot proviso, iu 1840, brought the 
question we are now considering into sharp and sudden prom- 
inence. General Cass had been made the Democratic candi- 
date for the Presidency in 1848, in view and in no small part 
iu consequence of an open letter to his political friends, writ- 
ten the year before, in which he told them that the right of 
Congress to regulate the Territory and other property of the 
United States would naturally be construed as merely de- 
signed to embrace property regulations; that it had been 
pushed further in practice "by rather a violent implication,'' 
but that it was "a doubtful aud invidious authority," and 
*' should be limited to the creation of proper governments for 
new countries, acquired or settled, and to the necessary provi- 
sion for their eventual admission into the Union, leaving in 
the meantime to the people inhabiting them to regulate their 
internal concerns in their own way."-^ 

The question was a troublesome one for politicians, as well 
as for jurists. If the Missouri compromise of 1820 was to be 
upheld, it must be because Congress could rightfully legislate 
as to the domestic institutions of the Territories. If it was to 
be broken through by the Wilmot proviso, it was also because 
Congress had that power. 

Some of the Whig leaders now took the ground that the 
power to legislate for Territories in this and all other matters 
existed, but was rather one resting on implication than uix»n 
express grant. John Davis, of Massachusetts, defended this 
doctrine in the Senate, but said that the exercise of the power 
was to be controlled by the fundamental maxims of the Con- 
stitution. Calhoun came nearly to the same position. The 
"needful rules and regulations clause,'' he said, "conferred no 
governmental power whatever." But the Constitution recog- 

• Beuuer v. Porter, 9 IlowHrd's Report m, 242. 

» Letter of December 24, 1847, to A. O. P. Nicholson. 



uized slavery. Slaves were therefore property, so far as the 
United States were coucerned. The citizens of the Unit<ed 
States were entitleil to free access to every part of its unoc- 
cupied Territories. They must be allowed to take their prop- 
erty with them. A sovereign State might abolish slavery 
within its limits. Into that State a slaveholder could not 
thereafter take this kind of property and hold it in i>osses- 
siou. But the Gonstitutiou shielded him in the Territories, 
for they took their ix)litical character solely from the United 
States and the Constitution was their supreme law. 

I>avis's colleague was Daniel Webster. He met the issue 
in the line of his argument at the bar before Marshall, twenty 
years before, by denying that tlie Constitution had any opera- 
tion in the Territories until acts of Congress were ma(le to 
enforce it; it was made for the States, and not for territorial 
possessions. Benton took the same ground and maintained it 
in his Thirty Years' View, ])ubli8hed in I80G.' 

Calhoun had, at an earlier stage of the controversy in 1848, 
inveighed in the Senate in most impressive terms against all 
measures looking to the acquisition of new territory to be gov- 
erned as a political dependency, and had introduced a resolu- 
tion declaring that to conquer and hold Mexico, '' either as a 
province or to incor|X)rate it in the Union, would be • • • 
a departure from the settled policy of the Government, in con- 
flict with its character and genius, and in the end subversive 
of our free and popular institutions." 

While the i>oIitical anvil was so hot the Supreme Court 
wisely confined itself to disposing of the cases before tlicm, 
without pronouncing npon academic questions, however impor- 
tant. Six years later, however, it adopted a ditterent ])oIicy. 
In the Dred Scott case Chief Justice Taney announced his 
atlhesion and, so far as he could, committed the court to the 
doctrine advocated by Callioun. The ^'needful rules and reg- 
ulations clause," he declared, had no operation on territory 
acquired since the adoption of the Constitution. Such terri- 
tory was subject to such laws as Congress might enact as tlie 
legislative arm of the Government, but these must be confined 
within the limits assigned by the Constitution for the protection 
of person and property'. A power to rule it without restric- 
tioUf as a colony or dependent province, would be inconsistent 
with the nature of our Government. Slaves might, therefore, 



be taken and held there, because slavery was a status recog- 
nized by the Oonstitution.^ 

The court, as reconstituted during the civil war, which the 
Dred Scott decision had done so much to produce or to accel- 
erate, reverted to the doctrine of Chief Justice Marshall, and 
in 1871 reinstated the <' needful rules and regulations clause" 
as the primary authority for our territorial legislation.^ The 
right of a sovereign to rule his possessions, in later decisions, 
has also been relied on, and has perhaps been most emphat- 
ically expressed in dealing with the various acts of Congress 
passed to suppress polygamy in Utah. The fullest statement 
of the present view of the court was given by Mr. Justice 
Matthews in one of these Utah cases, in which, after saying 
that the question of the power of Congress to legislate for the 
Territories as to matters of domestic concern is no longer open 
for controversy, the opinion proceeded thus: 

It has passed beyond the stage of controversy into final Jadgment. The 
people of the United States, as sov^ereign owners of the national Terri- 
tories, have snprerae power over tliem and tlieir inhabitants. In the exer- 
cise of this sovereign dominion they are represented by the Govern ment 
of the United States, to whom all the powers of government over that sub- 
ject have been delegated, subject only to snch restrictions as are exprcsscMl 
in the Constitution or are necessarily implied in its terms, or in the pur- 
poses and objects of the power itself; for it may well be admitted iu respect 
to this, as to every power of society over its members, that it is not abso- 
lute and unlimited. But in ordaining government for the Territories and 
the people who inhabit them all the discretion which belongs to legisla- 
tive power is vested in Congress, and that extends, beyond all controversy, 
to determining by law, from time to time, the form of the local govern- 
ment in a particular Territory and the qualification of those who shall 
administer it. It rest^ with Congress to say whether, in a given case, any 
of the people, resident in the Territory, shall participate in the el<}Ction 
of its officers or the making of its laws; and it may, therefore, take from 
them any right of suffrage it may previously have conferred, or at any 
time modify or abridge it, as it may deem expedient. The right of local 
self-government, as know^n to our system as a constitutional franchise, 
belongs, under the Constitution, to the States and to the people thereof, 
by whom that Constitution was ordained, and to whom, by its terms, aU 
power not conferred by it upon the Government of the United States was 
expressly reserved. The personal and civil rights of the inhabitants of 
the Territories are secured to them, as to other citizens, by the principles 
of constitutional liberty which restrain all the agencies of government, 
State and national; their political rights are franchises which they hold 
us privileges in the legislative discretion of the Congress of the United 
States. This doctrine was fully and forcibly declared by the Chief Jus- 

' Scott V. Sanford, 10 Tloward'o Reimrtii, 447 nt neq. 

* Clinton v. Kngelbreclit, 13 Wallace's Keports, 434,441,447. 


tiro delivering the opinion of the oonrt in National Bank i;. Coanty of 
Yankton, lOi U. S., 129. See also American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet., 
511; United States r. Gratiot, 14 Pet., 526; Cross v, Harrison, 16 How., 
164; Dred Soott v. Sauford, 19 How., 393. If we concede that this dis- 
cretion in Congress is limited by the obvious purposes for which it was 
conferred, and that those purposes are satisfied by measures which pre- 
pare the people of the Territories to become States in the Union, still the 
conclusion can not be avoided that the act of Congress here in question is 
clearly within that justification. For certainly no legislation can be sup- 
posed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self- 
governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate States 
of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the 
idea of the family, as consisting in and springing trom the union for life 
of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony ; the sure 
foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization ; the best 
guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficeut 
progress in social and political improvement. And to this end no means 
are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this 
act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who 
are practically hostile to its attainment.' 

It will be remarked that the Dred Scott opinion is here cited 
as an aathority. Mr. Justice Matthews's statement of the law 
was quoted with approval in 1889 by Mr. Justice Bradley in 
deciding the greatest of ail the Utah cases — that which held 
that Congress, as representing the parens patrice of the Terri- 
tory, could annul the charter of the Mormon Church, confis- 
cate its property, and devote it to public uses. He added, 
however, this important observation of his own : 

Donbtless Congress, in legislating for the Territories, would be subject 

to those fundamental limitations in favor of personal rights which are 
fom^ulated in the Coustitutiou and its amendments, but these limitiitiuns 
would exist rather by inference and the general spirit of the Constitution, 
from which Congress derives all its powers, than by any express and 
direct application of its provisions.^ 

It will be perceived that these few but pregnant words, 
repeated later with approval in an Alaska case by Mr. Justice 
Harlan,^ substantially reaffirm a position on which the Dred 
Scott decision was rested by all the justices but three, and 
from which none of the other three dissented.^ This is that 
Congress, in making rules for the Territories, is subject to some 
or all of the restrictions and prohibitions imposed upon it by 
the Constitution as respects other legislation affecting person 
or property. A difference is, indeed, made in the mode of state- 

' Murphy v. Rjimse}*, 114 United States Reports, 44,45. 
* Monuon Church v. Cnlted States, 136 U. S.. 1, 42, 44, 58, 67. 
•McAllister v. United States, 141 United States ReportH, 174, 188. 
« Scott V. Sanford, 19 Howard's Reports, 542, 614. 


roent. In 1850 the coart considered the letter as well as the 
spirit of the Constitution to have a < )utroHiiig force. In 1884 
what is to be implied or derived from its spirit is treated as 
the main if not the only source of restraint. Tliis mode of 
expression may have been adopted in order to leave the way 
open to bold, should occasion arise, that the United States 
could not lawfully acquire territory to hold i)ermanently or 
for an indefinite period as a dependent province or colony. 
If, however, it means what it seems to declare, and is of gen- 
eral application, then the utterance of Taney on this point 
seems in hinsically entitled to the most respect. That is in 
line with what Chief Justice Marshall said in the great case of 
Cohen against Virginia,' in discussing the not dissimilar power 
of Congress to legislate for the District of Columbia, and 
meeting the objection that such legislation had simply a local 
effect. He observed : 

Cougresfl is uot a local legislature, but exercises this particular power, 
like all its other powers, in its high character ns the legislature of the 
ITnioD. The American people thought it a nect^ssary power, an«l they 
conferred it for thi^ir own bcnetit. Being so conferred, it carries with it 
all those incidental powers which are necessary to its complete and cflec- 
iiiul execution. Whether any particular law be designed to operate with- 
out the District or not depends on the words of that law. If it be designed 
so to <iperate, then the question whether the power so exercised be inci- 
dental to the power of exclusive legislation, and be warranted by the 
Constitutiou, requires a consideration of that instrument. In such canes 
the Constitution and the law must be compared and construed. 

Any other construction leaves the rights of the citizen too 
much at tlie will of the judiciary, and ignores the natural 
meaning of our bill of rights.^ The main privileges j^nd immu- 
nities guaranteed by the amendments to the Constitution, 
which serve that office, sire shared by every foreigner who 
may be found within our jurisdiction.^ They must then cer- 
tainly be the heritage of every settled inhabitant of the land. 
Such is their force in every organized Territory by a(;t of Con- 
gress (Revised Statutes, section 1891), and I believe it to be 
the same in every unorganized territory which is subject to civil 
government, by virtue of the Constitution itself.^ 

• 6 Whcaton'a Reports, 2C4. 

*Sw) Pomeroy's ConHtitutioiinl Law, sec. 498; Coolly 'h Prinrlplcs of Constitiitionnl 
Law, 36. 

»Wonff Wingw. Unltcil Statos, 103 Unite*! Stat<»8 Hepoits. 228.238,239,242. 

*S<'oilo,yiiol(l8 V. UnlioU Statoj*. 98 UnitM States Kopoits. 145, IM, 158, 162; In re Sah 
Quah, 31 Federal Kei>orter, 329, 3.30. 


If the laws of Congress a^ to the Territories are laws of the 
United States, and subject in all respects to the Constitation 
of the United States, how can we justify the long established 
practice of investing the Territorial legislatures with general 
legislative power! Here again we may turn to Ohief Justice 
Marshall for an answer. The ^'needful rules and regulations 
clause," he said in McGuUoch against Maryland,' authorizes 
the organization of a Territorial government, which constitutes 
a corporate body. Precisely as a Sta be may incoriiorate a city 
with its city council, the United States may incorporate a 
Territory witlu a Teiritorial council or a legislature. The stat- 
utes of auch a body will not be of the United States, but 
laws of that part of it lying within the corporate limits, so 
for as Congress may have left the field o]ien for their adoption. 
They are like the laws of our chartered (colonics before the 

Assuming, then, that the Constitution is the supreme law 
wherever the flag of the Union floats over its soil, are there 
any of its provisions which are likely to embarrass us in denli ng 
with our new possessions? 

That they are islands and not part of the mainland of Korth 
Auierica is of itself an immaterial circumstance, so far as the 
right to acquire them is concerned. Islands that fringe a 
continent are part of it. Porto Rico and Cuba are American 
islands.'' Hawaii is m a position to command our coast, and 
lies nearer to us than the outer Aleutian island, the acquisition 
of which has been confirmed by general acquiescence during 
thirty years. For temporary commercial purposes, indeed, we 
have the warrant of the Supreme Court for saying that the 
President, with the authority of Congress, can ac(]uire any 
island, however remote, and m.ake it, while retained, a part of 
the United States.^ For purposes of naval defense a similar 
and permanent acquisition would, no doubt, be proper. If 
there is any difficulty in our accepting the cession of the 
Philippines, it is not that they are islands, but that they are 
not appurtenant to the American continent. 

Are we then — should the Spanish treaty be ratified — to meet 
any constitutional difiicultyiii holding and governing what- 
ever it may bring usf 

>4 Whoaton's ReiwrUi, 318. 

*Se«i a (1i«cuMaiou of the Hmturic Policy of the TnitMl Slateit uh to Aniiexalion, in the 
Rpport of thi> Anieriraii HiKtoriral A.iiiiociatioii Tor 1893, p. 379. 
*JoDea 9. Untied Stales, 137 L'nit^nl Slatca K«<i»ort8, 2ir.'.212.'.'2). 


1. The foarteenth and fifteenth amendments must certainly 
prove a soarce of embarassment. The latter declares that the 
right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be 
denied or abridged by the United States on account of race or 
color. By section 1992 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
States, <^all persons born in the United States, and not subject 
to any foreign i)ower, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared 
to be citizens of the United States." This statute was passed 
on April 9, 1866, by the same Gougress which framed and 
on June 16, 1866, proposed to the States for ratification the 
fourteenth amendment, with which, therefore,, it may fairly 
be assumed to have been intended to be in harmony. The first 
words of that amendment are that ^^all persons born or nat- 
uralized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction 
thereof are citizens of the United States, and of the State 
wherein they reside." If this stood alone and unexplained by 
cotemporary legislation, it might be argued that it applied 
only to persons residing in one of the States. But read in the 
light of the Ilevised Statutes, section 1992, it would seem a 
more natural construction to treat it as adding to that, the 
farther step to which the consent of the States was necessary, 
that those thus born or naturalized, if they then or afterwards 
resided in a State, should be citizens of that State, as well 
as of the United States. It will be observed that the State 
among whose citizens they are thrust is not necessarily that 
of tlieir birth. It is any State in which citizens of the United 
States may at any time reside. 

Whether, therefore, section 1992 of the Eevised Statutes 
should be repealed or not, the fourteenth amendment would 
seem to make every child, of whatever race, born in any of our 
new territorial possessions after they become part of the U nited 
States, of parents who are among its inhabitants and subject 
to our jurisdiction, a citizen of the United States from the 
moment of birth. The Indian tribes on our own continent are 
held not to be subject to our jurisdiction in the sense in which 
those words are here employed. They were until 1871 (Re- 
vised Statutes, sec. 2079) considered as separate nations 
with which we dealt as treaty powers.* Their present con- 
dition has been described by the Supreme Court of the United 
States as ^*a dependent condition, a state of pupilage, resem- 

' Tbo Cberokuo Nation v. Georgia, 5 Peters h Keportu, 1. 


bling that of a ward to hi8 guardian." * Can this same position 
be assigned to the pagan Malays, the Moros, and the many 
savage tribes in the Philippines? This will be a grave ques- 
tion for Congress and the courts to meet.^ But however that 
may be decided, the more civilized Fili[)ino8 and the people of 
Porto Eico, not less than the natives of Hawaii, will certainly 
be fully subject to our jurisdiction. Their children, born after 
the ratification of the Spanish treaty, if it should be ratified, 
will all be citizens of the United States. They must therefore, 
by the fifteenth amendment, have the same right of suffrage 
which may be conceded in those Territories to white men of 
civilized races. One generation of men is soon replaced by 
another, and in the Tropics more rapidly than with us. In 
fifty years the bulk of the adult population of Porto Eico, 
Hawaii, and the Philippines, should these then form part of 
the United States, will be claiming the benefit of the fifteenth 

2. The fourteenth amendment declares that should any State 
abridge or deny the right of suffrage as to any of its adult 
male inhabitants who are citizens of the United States, except 
for crime, its representation in Congress shall be correspond- 
ingly reduced. This applies in terms only to the States; but 
does it not state a constitutional principle — that of manhood 
sufirage for every citizen — which the spirit of this amendment 
requires us to observe in dealing with our Territories t Such 
woald seem to hav6 been its legislative construction in the 
title of the Eevised Statutes relating to that subject (sees. 
1859, 1860). Can we properly leave the restriction upon the 
States and relieve Hawaii from its operation? 

It is true that it has never been enforced against the States, 
but it may be, at the pleasure of Congress, at any time. 

3. The provision in the first article of the Constitution that 
"all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout 
the United States" will also prove an obstacle to any policy of 
the *'open door," if our protective system is to be maintained. 
It requires that any customs duties we may impose on imported 
goods shall be of one and the same form and at one and the 
same rate at every port of entry throughout the United States.^ 

1 Elk V. WilkhiH, 112 United Stotes Keporta, 94, 09. 
* See United States v. KAgaina, 118 United States Reports, 375, 380, 384. 
*Ix>aghboroagh v. Blake, 5 Wheaton's Beports, 317; Head-money Cases, 112 United 
Stated Keporta, 580, 5M. 


If there is a duty of 40 i)er cent collectible on woolen doth 
brought to New York from a foreign ])ort, the same jiercentage 
must be collected on woolen cloth brought to Manila from a 
foreign port, subject only to any temporary reservations of a 
right to entry on more favorable terms which may be made in 
the treaty of cession. 

On this point the Supreme Court of the United States had 
occasion to speak soon after the Mexican war, when California 
became ours by the treaty of peace, and a contest nrose over 
the right of the temporary government set up by the United 
States to exact duties on imported goods landed at San Fran- 

"By the ratifications of the treaty," says the opinion, "Call 
fomia became a part of the United States. And as there is 
nothing differently stipulated in the treaty with resjiect to 
commerce, it became instantly bound and privileged by the 
laws which Congress had passed to raise a revenue from duties 
on imiM>rts and tonnage."' 

It was contended by the importers that as Congress had not 
yet made San Francisco a port of entry or constituted any 
collection diHtrict in California the tariff law could not apply. 
To this the court replied as follows: 

Can any reason bo given for tbe exemption of foreippo gooils from dnty 
because they bave not been t*nterc(l and collected at a port of delivery f 
Tbe lout become a part of the conHnniption of the country as well as the 
others. They may be carried from the point of landing into collection 
districts within which duties have been paid npon the same kinds of 
goods; thns entering, by the retail Kale of them/ into competition with 
8ii('h goods and with our own mannfacturcH and tbe products of onr own 
farmers and planters. The right claimed to land foreign goods within 
tbe United States at any place out of a collection district, if allowed, 
would be a violation of that provision in the Constitution whieh enjoins 
that all duties, impOHts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the 
United States, indeed, it must be very clear that no such right exists, 
and that there was nothing in tbe condition of California to exempt 
importers of foreign goods into it from tho payment of the same duties 
which were cbnrgeable in tbe other ports of tho United States. As to the 
denial of the authority of the President to prevent the landing of foreign 
goods in the United States out of a collection district, it can only be 
necessary to say, if he did not <1o so, it would be a neglect of his couHti- 
tuiional obligation 'Ho take care that the laws be carefully exeented.'** 

Delicate questions under the treaty must also arise respect- 
ing duties on commerce between Manila and Americau ports. 

I Cross V. Hnrriflon, IG HowanlH Ue))ortH, 197. 'Ibid., 198. 


Porto Bico has been provisioually treated by the executive 
power of the United States as a domestic port for all purposes 
of American coasting trade. Can the Philippines, off the coast 
of Asia, be looked at in the same wayf 

The iK>wer of Congress to lay ^^ imposts," it has been said by 
the Supreme Court of the United States, refers to imposts on 
foreign goods 'introduced from other nations."* If we ratify 
the treaty and so bring the Philippines under our sovereignty, 
they cease to be a foreign country. Will it then be open to 
Congress to tax our trade with them ? 

4. An objection against the permanent incorporation of the 
Philippines into the United States remains for consideration, 
which, if sound, is insurmountable. This nation is the United 
States of America. That name was assumed on July 4, 1776, 
by the '^ Kepresentatives of the United States of America in 
general Congress assembled," who signed the Declaration of 
Independence. The first article of our first Constitution, the 
Articles of Confederation^ is that ''The stile of this Confeder- 
acy shall be ' The United States of America.' " The preamble 
of our present Constitution states its adoption by "the i)eople 
of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union 
• ♦ • and secure the blessings. of liberty" to themselves 
and their "posterity." What they did was summarized at the 
close of the preamble. It was to "ordain and establish this 
Constitution for the United States of America." 

The United States of America is a plural term. The union 
of separate States in one political body does not extinguish 
their separate existence nor vary the force of their having 
formed this "more perfect union" in order to promote their 
several a^ well as their common interests. Can the United 
States of America ever include a State erected on islands off 
the coast of Asia and having no possible tie of connection 
with the American continent? I believe that to this a nega- 
tive answer may be safely given. Can they, then, annex such 
islands to a union into which they can never enter on equal 
terms t^ 

This question cuts deeper than the one propounded to the 
Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott case. 

I Woodnitr o. ParbaiD, 8 Wallaoe'8 Boporta. 123, 133; Cook i;. Peunaylvania, 97 Unitoil 
States llcporta, 566. 

'That w» can only hold nowly acquired territory witli a view to ita ultimate stato- 
Iiood and iu trust for aucfa future State aeeiua implied in several recent decisions of tlio 
Saprpme Court, o. g., Sbively o. Bowlby, 152 United States Reports, 1, 23, 49, 57. 


The opinion given there was that we could not acquire any 
American territory to hold permanently as a dependent prov- 
ince. If that position be unsound, it would not follow that 
islands appertaining to another continent could be so acquired 
and held. 

To acquire, of course, is one thing, and to keep another. 

I believe we have unquestionable power to acquire the 
Philippines as the spoils of war; but a conqueror is not bound 
and may not be able to retain what ho receives. If we retain 
the Philippines, we must have the right to tax their people. 
Does our Constitution contemplate or permit taxation which 
is necessarily uncoupled with representation in the legislature 
by which it is decreed! 

This argument was x)ressed upon the Supreme Court of the 
United States in an early case growing out of the imposition 
of a direct tax on the District of Columbia. Chief Justice 
Marshall, speaking for the court, said that, while indirect taxes 
must be imposed by the same rule throughout every i^art of 
the United States, Congress in laying a direct tax might 
restrict it to the States or extend it to the Territories or the 
District at its discretion. It was true that the latter were not 
represented in Congress, but citizens of the District had vol- 
untarily relinquished any claim to it, and those of the Terri- 
tories were looking forward to it as soon as the proper 
conditions for statehood should be attained. This, he said, 
was obviously a different thing from '^requiring a continent 
with an immense population to submit to be taxed by a Gov- 
ernment having no common interest with it, separated from it 
by a vast ocean, restrained by no principle of api>ortionment, 
and associated with it by no .common feelings."* The Philip- 
pines are not a continent, but they cover more than 100,000 
square miles of land and are inhabited by 6,000,000 or 8,000,000 
l)eople. This is both an area and a population more than 
twice as great as those within the settled limits of the revolt- 
ing English colonies in America at the time to which Marshall 
thus alluded. 

If we ratify the treaty of cession and the Filipinos acknowl- 
edge our claim of sovereignty, and then the course of events 
should be such that we found ourselves unable or unwilling 
to hold them permanently as a colonial dei>eudeu(;e, how could 
we get rid of such possessions? 

1 Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheaton'a BeiKirts, 317. 


It would seem logical to hold that the treaty-making branch 
of the Government by which they were acquired could, by 
similar proceedings, convey them to some other power. So 
far as a transfer of sovereignty is concerned, it could not be 
accomplished otherwise, unless successful revolt or other 
political change had made the Filipinos an independent 
people. To make a grant, there must be some one with whom 
to close the contract. 

But it is the right of Congress to dispose of the territory of 
the United States, considered in the character of property. 
To sell or give away any jjart of the national domain reduces 
by so much the national resources. As all measures to raise 
revenue must originate in the House of Eepresentatives, and 
to stop the revenues from any territory by its alienation would 
require raising more revenue by taxation, it would seem 
proper, if not necessary, that the whole of Gougress, and not 
merely the President and Senate, should concur in any measure 
that reduced the area of the Bepublic. 

Gould such a reduction be made either through Gongress 
by law or the President and Senate by treaty, or both to- 
gether, if it took the shape of a gift to the Filipinos, under 
which our ownership and sovereignty would pass to them as 
an independent power? No authority for such a transaction 
is expressly given in the Gonstitution. If implied, it would 
probably have to rest on the assumption that the Philippines 
had proved a damnosa hereditas. There would be greater 
difficulty in defending it on the ground that we hud taken 
them as an act of humanity to spread the blessings of inde- 
pendent liberty over an oppressed people, after we had ele- 
vated and educated them sufficiently to make them fit to use 
it aright. For foreign missionary work of this kind in another 
continent, our Constitution contains no provision. 

The case of Cuba is, of course, far different. That lies at 
our doors. It has not been ceded to the United States. Spain 
has relinquished her sovereignty, but she has not transferred 
it to us. Our position is to be that of a custodian, or receiver. 
The sovereignty is, in effect, in abeyance, but it is to pass, by 
our pledged consent, to the Cuban people whenever they organ- 
ize a government for themselves and show that they can main- 
tain it, and with it the peace and order to which Cuba has 
been so long a stranger. 

The Philippines also occupy a very different relation to us. 


as respects the questions of constitutional limitations, from 
that which belongs to Hawaii or Porto liico. The West India 
Islands appertain to onr continent as fnliy as Nantucket or 
the Dry Tortugas. Hawaii is nearer to it than to any other, 
and no shipowner or naval officer, in these days when it is coal 
that moves commerce and defends it, will question that it is 
within our legitimate " sphere of influence." 

5. Let us now turn to the method of administration which 
would be open to us in regulating the internal affairs of the 
islands and the maintenance of peace and order. 

At ])resent they are rightfully held and controlled by the 
Executive power, but it would hardly comi)ort with the prin- 
ciples of republican government to allow that regime to con- 
tinue longer than necessity absolutely requires. The laws in 
force while Spain held them will continue in force, except so 
far as the President or his subordinates may see fit to modify 
them, or as they may be inconsistent with the Constitution of 
the United States, until Congress replaces (hem by a diflerent 

Must this new system include the institution of trial by jury 
for persons charged with crime! 

It is difficult to predict with absolute confidence what will 
be the decision of the courts on a question of so delicate and 
far-reaching a character, presented in a light in which the 
subject has never before been brought to their attention. 

It seems to me, however, probable that there would be no 
way of escape found from the conclusion that a jury would be 

Article IV, section 2, declares expressly that '*The trial of 
all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury," 
and this was clearly intended to embrace those committed 
outside of any State. But this provision is contained in a 
section dealing exclusively with the subjects of judicial power 
particularly intrusted to the United States. It is settled 
(whether logically or illogically) that the courts of Territories 
do not exercise the power thus conferred. Congress finds its 
warrant for them in quite different parts of the Constitution; 
and it is a sufficient warrant for investing them with jurisdic- 
tion over every kind of act against the peace of the United 
States which the laws of the United States may forbid. Trae, 
jurisdicticm of similar extent may be and has been given under 


this partiealar section to the regular courts of the Uuited 
Stsites; but the source of power under which the different 
tribunals act is different. The source of power for the ordi- 
nary courts gives it with a limitation in favor of trial by jury. 
The source of power for Territorial courts might, I think, be 
read as giving it with no such limitation. While this would 
give rather a strict construction to the constitutional guaranty, 
it would be quite in lino with that which the Supreme Court 
has assigned to other provisions hardly less important, such 
as thsit' securing the tenure of judicial office during good 
behavior. The court, however, has made two decisions which 
tend strongly in the opposite direction. 

The first was this: A man was convicted of a misdemeanor 
iu the police court of the District of Columbia, upon a trial 
before the judge, after a demand for a jury had been refused. 
He sought relief by a writ of habeas corpus from confinement 
under the sentence. The act of Congress, passed under its 
authority <Ho exercise exclusive legislation in all cases what- 
soever" over the District, which constituted the police court, 
denied a jury in such proceedings. The supreme court of the 
District had sustained the validity of this statute, and refused 
to release the prisoner. This judgment was reversed by the 
Sui^reme Court of the United States on the sole ground that 
he had a constitutional right to a jury trial, and their reasons 
were thus stated : 

Tboro u nothing in the hutory of the Constitution or of the original 
amendments to jastify the assertion that the people of this District may 
be lawfully deprived of the benefit of any one of the constitutional guar- 
anties of life, liberty, and property — cspeciaUy of the privilege of trial 
by jnry iu criminal coses. In the draft of a constitution reported by the 
committee of five on the 6th of August, 1787, in the convention which 
framed the Constitution, the fourth section of Article XI read that 'Hhe 
trial of all criminal offenses (except in cases of impeachment) shall be iu 
tbo States where they shall be committed ; and shall be by jury/' (1 Elli- 
ott's Deb., 2d ed., 229.) But that article was by unanimous vote amended 
so as to read: ''The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachment) 
shall be by Jury ; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said 
crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any 
State, then the trial shall be at such place or places as the legislature may 
direct.'' (Id., 270.) The object of thus amending the section, Mr. Madison 
says, was "to provide for trial by jury of oflenses committed out of any 
StAte." (3 Madison Papers, 144.) In Reynolds v. United States (98 U. S., 
145, 154) it was taken for granted that the sixth amendment of the Con- 
stitution secured to the people of the Territories the right of trial by jury 
HIST 98 22 

338 ameri(;an historical asj^ociation. 

in criminal prosecations; and it had been previously held in Webster r. 
Reid (11 How., 437, 460) that the Reventh amendment secured to them a 
like right in civil actions at common law. We can not think that the 
people of this District have in that reji^ard lesR rights than those accorded 
to the people of the Territories of the United States. ^ 

The same doctrine was applied, a few months since, to one 
of our organized Territories. The Territorial statutes of Utab 
provided for a jury of twelve in criminal trials. The constitu- 
tion of the State of Utah reduced the number to eight. A man 
was convicted in a court of the State, before eight jurors, for 
grand larceny committed in the former Territory. He brought 
his case by writ of error before the Supreme Court of the 
United States, on the ground that the constitutional provision 
as against him was ex post facto, and therefore void. The 
contention was sustained; the court expressing itself in the 
following terms, from which only two of the justices dissented: 

That the provisions of the Constitution of the United State's relating 
to the right of trial by jury in snits at common law apply to the Terri- 
tories of the United States in no longer an open qnestion. * * * It is 
equally beyond ((uestion that the provisions of the National Constitution 
relating to trials by jury for crimes, and to crimiual prosecutions, apply 
to the Territories of the United States.- 

It was also held in the same opinion that — 

it was not in the power of one accused of felony, by consent expressly 
given or by his silence, to authorize a jury of only eight persons to pa^s 
upon the question of his guilt.^ 

If the views thus expressed are not overruled they must 
lead to the conclusion that no conviction for crime could be 
had in any of our new possessions, after the establishment 
there of an orderly civil government, whether constituting it 
an <* organized Territory" or an <' unorganized Territory," ex- 
cept upon a jury trial. 

I think also that by the ordinary rules of construction, the 
provisions of the third, fifth, and eighth amendments must be 
regarded in any form of Territorial government which Con- 
gress may construct for any part of the United States, includ- 
ing, of course, Porto Bico and the Philippines, should the 
pending treaty be ratified, and if, as I have taken for granted, 
it cedes to us the sovereignty over both. If not, it must be on 

> Gallan v. Wilson, 127 UDltixl SUten Reports, 540, 550. 

> Thompson v. UUh, 170 United States Keporto, 343,346, 347. 
sibid., 353. 


the theory that the gaarautlet^ which they afford to personal 
liberty refer only to proceedings had iii the exercise of the 
judicial power of the United States. To read them thus would 
seem to me to violate the ordinary rule that constitutional 
provisions for the safety of the individual and the security of 
property should be favorably and liberally construed.' It 
would also lead to what I should say was the inadmissible 
assumption that the amendments set up no checks against 
executive and legislative power.' 

The fourth amendment, which guards the people against 
unreasonable arrests and general warrants, was successfully 
invoked in an early case before Chief Justice Marshall, aris- 
ing in the Territory of Orleans. General Wilkinson, who was 
then in command of the army of the United States, and 
superintending the fortifications at New Orleans, arrested two 
men implicated in tbe Burr consjiiracy, and sent them on to 
Washington for trial. There was a Territorial court at New 
Orleans before which they might have been prosecuted. Ar- 
rived at Washington, they applied for a writ of habeas corpus, 
and were discharged by order of the Supreme Court of the 
United States, mainly on the ground that they could only be 
prosecuted where their offense was committed, and so that 
their arrest waK unwarranted by the Constitution.^ Judge 
Story, in commenting on the decision, remarks that as the 
arrests were made without any warrant from a civil magis- 
trate, they were in violation of the third amendment.^ 

A still more important precedent is that furnished by Milli- 
gan's case. During the civil war Indiana was a State border- 
ing on disputed territory. It had been itself invaded by Con- 
federate forays, and further incursions were apprehended. 
The President had therefore made it a military district. A 
powerful secret association existed there, under military 
organization, which was plotting insurrection.'^ In 18G4 one 
of its members was arrested and tried before a military com- 
mission, convicted of a treasonable conspiracy and violation 
of the laws of war, and sentenced to be hanged. The Presi- 
dent approved the sentence. On a writ of habeas corpus the 

I Boyd V. UtiiUMl State*. 116 Uuitod States Reporta, 616. 

* State V. Griswold, 67 Counecticat Reports, 290, 309. 

* Ex parte BoUman, 4 Granch'H Reports, 75. 

^Story's CoDimentaries on the Constitution, § 1895, note. 

* Ex iiarte Milligan, 4 Wallace's Reports, 140. 


Supreuic Court of the United States ordered bis discbarge, 
aud laid down these principles of decision : 

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rnlers and people, 
e<iual1y in war aud in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection 
all classes of men, at all times, and under all circnmHtanccs.^ » » * 
The great minds of the country have differed on the correct interpretation 
to be given to various provisions of the Federal Constitution, and judicial 
decision has been often invoked to settle their true meaning, bnt nntil 
recently no one ever doubted that the right of trial by jury was fortified 
in the organic law against the power of attack. It is now assailed, butif 
ideas can be expressed in words, and language has any meaning, this 
right — one of the most valuable in a free country — in preserved to every 
one accused of crime who is not attached to the Army, or Navy, or militia 
in actual service.* * * * If, in foreign invasion or civil war, tho 
courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal jus- 
tice according to law, then, on the theater of active military operations, 
where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for 
the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the Army 
and society, and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to gov- 
ern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As neces- 
sity creates the rule, so it limits its duration, for if this government is 
c<mtinned after the courts are reinstated it is a gross usurpation of power. 
Mai tial rule can never exist where the courts are open and iu the proper 
and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the 
locality of actual war.** 

From the fundamental positions thus taken there was no 
dissent, though Chief Justice Chase and three of liis asso- 
ciates were of opinion that Congress could, under the cir- 
cumstances existing in Indiana, have authorized such a mode 
of trial. They jvgreed to the judgment on the ground that 
Congress had not authorized it, but staited their own view in 
these words: 

^'We by no means assert that Congress can establish and apply the laws 
of war where no war has been dechircd or exists. Where peace exists the 
laws of peace must prevail. What we do maintain is, that when the 
nation is involved in war, and some portions of the country are invaded, 
and all are exposed tu invasion, it is within the power of Congress to 
determine in what States or districts such great aud imminent public dan- 
ger exists as justifies the authorization of military tribunals for the trial 
of crimes and otfenses against the discipline or security of the Army or 
against the public safety."^ » « « There are under the Constitution 
three kinds of military jurisdiction — one to be exercised both in peace and 
war; another to be exercise*! in time of foreign war without the bounda- 
ries of the United h'tates, or in time of rebellion and civil war within 
States or districts occupi d by rebels treated as belligerents; and a third 

» Ibid., 120. « Ibid., 128. » Ibid., 127. 

* Ex parte MiUigan, 170 Unit«d Slates Beporto, 140. 


to be exercised in time of invasion or insurrection within the limits of the 
United States, ordnring rebellion within the limits of States maintaining 
adhesion to the National Government, when the public danger requires 
its oxrrcise. The first of these may be called jurisdiction under military 
law, and is fonnd in acts of Congress prescribing rules and articles of 
war, or otherwise providing for the government of the national forces ; 
the second may be distingnished as military government, superseding, as 
far as may be deemed expedient, the local la^, and exercised by the mili- 
tary commander under the direction of the President, with the express or 
implied sanction of Congress; while the third may be denominated mar- 
tial law proper, and is called into action by Congress, or temporarily, 
when the action of Congress can not be invited, and in the case of justi- 
fying or excusing peril, by the President, in times of insurrection or 
invasion, or of civil or foreign war, within districts or localities where 
ordinary law no longer adequately secures public safety and private 

At the present moment the conditions thus described exist. 
The President is holding these islands dnriog a foreign war, 
with the rights of a military commander in an enemy's coun- 
try. He has granted an armistice. He has negotiated a treaty 
of ])eace. But, until the Senate acts, our declaration of war 
remaitis unrevoked; a state of war, for all purposes of mili- 
tary occupation, still continues; and these islands, though 
ours as to the rest of the world, are still Spain's to us.^ 

Let me briefly summarize the conclusions which, it would 
seem to me, we must accept. 

There is no constitutional objection to the acquisition of 
any or all of our new possessions, or to subjecting them to a 
temporary government of military or colonial form. 

There is no constitutional objection to our taking temporary 
possession of Guba, as a friend of the Cubans, and maintaining 
l^ciice and order by a military occupatiou, under the President 
of the United States, until such time as we may deem its i>eo- 
pie fit to govern themselves. It is a practical application of 
the Monroe doctriue in its modern form. 

Until Congress acts, the President can govern our new pos- 
sessions with no other authority than that with which his great 
office is clothed by the Constitution in its grant of executive 

If the Spanish treaty should be ratified. Congress could 
replace the temporary government which the President has 
set up in Porto Rico by whatever form of administration it 

•Ibid., 141, 142. * Fleming v. Pago, Howard s JioporU, CU, 615. 

'Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 Howartrs Reporto, 176, 178. 


may tliink proper, not inconsistent with the principles and pro- 
visions of the' Constitution of the United States, and maintain 
it until the inhabitants may be fit to govern themselves. No 
fixed limit of time can be assigned for the duration of such a 
rSgime. We have held Alaska under such conditions already 
for thirty years, and she is hardly more deserving of autonomy 
now than when she was a Eussian province. We have held 
New Mexico, under different forms of administration, for nearly 
fifty years, and the character and traditions and laws of a 
Latin race are still so deeply stamped upon her x)eople and her 
institutions that no demand of party exigency has been strong 
enough to secure her admission to the privilege of statehood. 
Here, as in so many other matters where constitutional law 
and legislative policy may come in conflict, every presumption 
is to be made in favor of the good faith of Congress and the 
wise exercise of its discretion. 

Upon the ratification of the treaty, Porto Rico would become 
(and for the first time become) a part of the United States; 
but our customs laws would not have full operation there until 
Congress created the necessary collection districts and ix>rts 
of entry.' Until then the temiwrary government of the Presi- 
dent would continue; duties on imports could be lawfully col- 
lected by his agents; and whatever courts of a municipal char- 
acter he may have set up would continue in the discharge of 
their functions, with the power of life and death.^ 

A port or island like Guam, taken for military or naval pur- 
poses, can be permanently kept under military law. 

And here such certainty as can be derived from judicial prec- 
edent or settled legislative construction and popular acquies- 
cence conies to an end. 

Row long and with what effect Congress might allow our 
new possessions to be held under military rule; whether Porto 
liico can be held permanently and avowedly as a colonial 
dependence; whether the Philippines could be held perma- 
nently, either with or without a view of ultimately dividing 
them into Slates to be admitted as such into the Union; 
whether they could be given over to their inhabitants; whether 
all trials for crimes committed there must be by jury ; whether 
Cuba, which we have taken in the capacity of a friend or pro- 

1 Fleming V. Page, 9 Howard's RcporU, 802, 010, 617; Ilarailtoii v. DiHiii, 21 Wallace'ii 
JieportA, 73, 88, 07. 

'jRrk(>r t>. Montgomery', 18 Uoward'8 Keiiorts, 498, 515; The GraiMMiliot, Wallace's 
li«>portii, 129, 133. 


tector, for the benefit of its people, tbroagh a war, at the out- 
set of which the x)ublic faith was pledged not to acquire it for 
ourselves by right of conquest, could, should we come at last 
to despair of their capacity for self-government, be kept as 
part of the territory of the United States; whether in this 
Bepublic there can be settled inhabitants of civilized or semi- 
civilized races owing allegiance to the United States alone, but 
who can be regarded as subjects and not citizens' — these are 
questions not irrevocably settled so far as we can consult the 
oracles of the past, and in view of which the Senate must act, 
in dealing with the great issue now presented to it, as the 
executive council with which the States have surrounded the 
President to protect their interests against any undue exercise 
of Executive power. 

Our Constitution was made by a civilized and educated peo- 
ple. It ijrovides guaranties of personal security which seem 
ill adapted to the conditions of society that prevail in many 
parts of our new possessions. To give the half civilized 
Moros of the Philippines, or the ignorant and lawless brigands 
that infest Porto Eico, or even the ordinary Filipino of Manila, 
the benefit of such immunities from the sharx) and sudden 
justice or injustice which they have been hitherto accustomed 
to expect, would, of course, be a serious obstacle to the main- 
tenance there of an efficient government. Every people under 
a written constitution must experience difficulties of. adminis- 
tration that are unknown to nations like Great Britain which 
are unfettered by legal restraints imposed by former genera- 
tions. It is part of the price it pays for liberty that new con- 
ditions must be dealt with in fundamentals under old laws. 

The people of the United States, when they framed this Oon- 
stitution for themselves and their x)08terity, had they contem- 
plated a day when the Executive might negotiate a treaty of 
cession embracing an archipelago in the waters of Asia, might 
have relaxed some of the restrictions which they were laying 
down to limit the legislative power; they might also have 
strengthened and multiplied them. They may now be asked 
to declare their will through the slow i^rocess of constitutional 
amendment, but until they speak we must take the Constitu- 
tion as it is. 

'See on thin point Boyd v. Tbayer, 143 United StateA Keportn. 1»5, 162. 169; In re Loolc 
Ting Sing, 10 Sawyer's Beporte, 353 ; 21 Federal Ileporter, 905. 





By Ernest Buunckkn. 

There lias been considerable activity within the last few 
years in exploring the sources of information regarding the part 
played by immigrants of German tongue and their descend- 
ants during the colonial and revolutionary periods. But almost 
nothing has been done hitherto by historical students writing 
in English to elucidate the history of the German element 
since the war of the devolution. Even systematic attempts at 
collecting materials regarding this phase of American history 
are few and far between. Aside from the more or less desul- 
tory attempts of occasional individuals, and of late a few Ger- 
man societies and clubs, the student finds no assistance in his 
search for sources. What little has been written in English 
regarding the subject is of an economic rather than historical 
character; very few scholars seem to be aware that German 
immigration has had, during the last hundred years, an inter- 
esting course of historical development, and that it is quite 
impossible to understand the social and politica>I history of 
those portions of our country where German settlers have been 
numerous and influential without acquainting one's self with 
the successive stages of that development. 

Perhaps the temptation is great to consider the immigrants 
from German-speaking countries as merely a part of the great 
waves of westward migration to which we owe the conquest 
of a continent. If this view were correct, there could be no 
question of a separate history of German- Americans as a part 
of the general history of our people. This view would prob- 
ably be correct if the German immigrants, during these hun- 
dred years, had consisted exclusively of people who came here 
simply to better their material condition. But the truth is 
that a very large portion of Germans, especially during the 
pei'iod from 1S15 to 1860, came here for for different reasons. 



They came here because tbey hoped to realize in the Western 
Hemisphere certain political and social ideals. To this class 
belong not only the political exiles proper — i. e., persons who 
were compelled to leave their native land in order to escaiMj 
punishment for political ofienses — but also the much larger 
class of persons who had never come into conflict with the 
laws, but symj)athized with the revolutionary movements in 
the old country to such an extent that they could not rest sat- 
isfied at home. Not a few of these people were in comfortable 
circumstances, while others had held places of trust and influ- 
ence in their native land. The eflfect of their activity in their 
adopted country on the political and social life of large i>or- 
tions of the United States has been very great and is plainly 
perceptible to the present day. It follows that the nature of 
their influence and the manner in which they exercised it 
become highly important subjects of historical investigation. 

Another impulse, apart from that of seeking for material 
improvement, which brought many thousands of Germans to 
this country, was of a religious nature. The pietistic move- 
ment which was such an important factor in the earlier German 
immigration still survived during the earlier years of the 
nineteenth century, but it had little influence on the general 
fate of the German element. It expended itself in the organi- 
zation of communistic settlements, as it has done so frequently 
from the days of the <* Woman in the Desert '' to those of Zoar 
and Now Harmony. But of quite a different nature was the 
movement of the Old Lutherans into this country. The ideas 
of the leaders of that movement, skillfully availing themselves 
of the hunger of the North German peasantry for land which 
the West offered them in abundance, is still powerful among 
the adherents of the Lutheran Church in America, and one 
of the strongest conservative forces in existence. 

There is no appreciable number of Catholics who came to 
the United States principally for religious reasons. But the 
German element within the Boman, Church holds, in some 
respects, so distinct a position, that its history must be thor- 
oughly understood by the student who would analyze the 
influence of that i)owcrful ecclesiastical organization ujMjn 
American life. 

The history of German immigration during the nineteentli 
century may be roughly divided into two periods. The deca<ie 


from 18G0 to 1870 forms a transition from one to tbo other. 
At the beginning of that decade the civil war greatly reduced 
the number of arrivals, while toward its end the great laud- 
grant railroads began their vigorous exertions to attract for- 
eign settlers to their rich farming lands. From the Kevolu- 
tionary war to about 1815 the number of immigrants from 
Germany was comparatively small. Since about 1800 there 
have been practically no political exiles, except a few stray 
socialists or anarchists. During the period from 1815 to 1860, 
while the majority of immigrants then, as at all times, con 
sisted of laborers, artisans, and farmers who sought better 
material conditions, there was hardly a year without the arrival 
of a number of Germans belonging to the higher classes of 
society and being moved to expatriation by political discon- 
tent. In the years immediately following the European revo- 
lutionary movemeuts of 1830 and 1848, especially the latter 
year, the number of these immigrants became so large that 
they soon formed a most important element among tlie German 
residents of this country. 

It is not the purpose of this paper to give even an outline of 
the manifold activities of the German element in the United 
States during these years in the fields of politics, social reform, 
education, and art. It is doubtful, in fact, whether anyone 
would be competent at this moment to write such a liistory, 
simply becaosv/ the widely scattered materials have not yet 
been gathered and made accessible. When this history comes 
to be written there will be no lack of interest to the student of 
oar political, social, and religious development, nor even to the 
lover of picturesque or dramatic incident. The salient points 
in that history will be the early settlements of Germans along 
the receding frontier, from Ohio to the Rocky Mountains; the 
attempts at organized colonization, notably that of the ^^Adels- 
Verein" in Texas, which, in melancholy and picturesciue inter- 
est and hardships of all sorts endured by the settlers, rivals 
any of the tales told about the sufferings of the seventeenth- 
century colonists; the various so called "Latin settlements'' 
in Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, and elsewhere, which became cen- 
ters of light and higher culture in the crudeness of frontier 
conditions. Next would come the advent of the "Forty- 
eighters,'' with its incidents of public receptions and triumphal 
progresses through the country like that of Gottfried Kinkel. 


The political activity of these iiewcomera, eccentric and im- 
practical a8 it often was, will have to be traced ia detail, for it 
has powerfully influenced the fate of political parties in many 
of the States, and its effects can be felt to the present day. 
The more or less fanciful attempts at creating purely Germau 
States in the West, utter failures though they were, must 
receive their share of attention. The rivalries between the 
"Grays" and the "Greens," i. e., the older residents and the 
newcomers after 1848, are sometimes amusing, and of interest 
because of their effects on politics and especially the fortunes 
of the young Republican party. The autislavery struggle, 
especially in the West, can not be fully understood without a 
cousideration of the part the Germans took in it. Nor would 
our political and religious life be what it is if it had been un- 
influenced by the bitter quarrels of the German liadieals with 
the Eoman Catholics, at the same time that the Knowuothiug 
movement threatened foreigners of all religious beliefs. 

Since the civil war the vigor and interest of German- 
American life as a distinct entity has declined considerably. 
The German element of to-day is less widely separated from 
the great stream of American life than it was in the earlier 
days. This is undoubtedly because the later immigrants have 
found upon their arrival a large body of older residents, par- 
tially Americauized, together with their native-born children, 
who form an easy transition to the mass of the American 
people. Nevertheless, there are many phases of our later his- 
tory which must remain obscure without a thorough acquaint- 
ance with the part taken in them by the citizens of German 
extraction. C^This is true notably of the school question which 
has agitated many Western States, the questions of finance 
and prohibition, certain features of ecclesiastical development, 
the labor movement, and other important matters. 

Of published matter dealing with these subjects in the 
English language, there is but very little. What can be found 
mostly deals with pioneer incidents, and is apt to be of a 
character principally local and personal.^ Of German publi- 
cations printed in this country and avowedly devoted to the 
history of the German element, there is also but little. Fore- 
most among such publications must be mentioned a monthly 

* Somethinj; regarding tbo political aclivity of the Forty-eigbtors may occasiouaUy be 
found in Knownothing publications, but tbls source must, for obvious reasons, be lian- 
died with care. 


magazine which daring Hiteen years appeared at Cincinnati 
under the auspices of the German Pioneers' Club and the edi- 
torial lesuiership of Henry Kattermann. This little publica- 
tion is a rich mine of information, but as it is of a popular 
nature it also contains much trivial and irrelevant matter. 
Biographical accounts of a large number of the more promi- 
nent among the German immigrants before 1848, together 
with a good deal of miscellaneous information concerning our 
subject, are found in a volume by Gustav Ko^rner, cited in the 
note below. A volume edited by Anton Eickhoff, containing 
contributions from various pens, has much valuable mate- 
rial. So does Schem's Deutsch-amerikanisches Konversatious- 
liexicon. Various local histories, some of which are cited 
below, contain notices of general interest.^ 

The most important source of information is to be found in 
the German newspapers of this country. The German- 
American press, as is well known, dates back to the earlier 
half of the eighteenth century, took new life, after a period of 
decay, since the year 1830, and reached very great importance, 
both as to the number of publications and their character, 
since the year 1848. It is only within the last few years that it 
has shown marked indications of having passed its most flour- 
ishing period. But unfortunately complete files of the earlier 
German newspapers, especially during the period from 1830 
to 1860, are extremely rare. This is especially true of some of 
the more short-lived publications of the Forty-eighters, which, 
however, are precisely those most desirable for historical 

Next to newspapers and periodicals printed in this country 
come publications appearing in Europe and written either by 
resident's of the United States or by travelers. Of..tLi»e.thfire 

'Der Dentscbo Pionier; monthly; 15 volamos. Ciucinuati, 1869-1884. 

Gustav Koemer, Das deutschc Element in den Ver. Staaten \;ou Nord-Amerika. C'iuv 
clnnatl, A. E.Wilde & Co. 1880. 8vo. Pp.461. ,'..*, 

Emil Klanprecht, Deutache Chronik in dor Geschichte dea Ohio-Tliales. Ciociuuati. 

Rudolph A. Koss, Milwaukee. Milwaukee, 1871. 8vo. Pp. ATJ. 

O. Goebel. Langer als ein Menschcnleben in Miasonri. 

L. Stierlin, Der Staat Kentucky und die Stadt Luuiaville! 

Armin Tenner. Cincinnati aonat und jetzt. Cincinnati, Mocklenhurg &. Rosenthal, 
.Alexander Scheni, Dentsch-amerikaniaches Konveroations-Lexicon. New York, 1860- 
1874. 11 Tola. 

Anton Eickhoff (ed.), In der ueucn Heimath. Geachichtliche Mittheilungen iiher die 
deutache Einwanderuns In alien Theilen der Union. New York, Steiger Sc Co., 1884. 
Largo 8ro. Pp. 'S^. Api>eudix, pp. 164. 


is of course a very largo number, of all characters and witb 
all kinds of objects in view — from the serious scieutitic volume 
to the lightest of feuilletous. It is not attempted in this 
paper to present an even approximately complete bibliography 
of this class of books. Most of them may be found in Sabin^s 
Dictionary of Books Relating to America, as far as that work 
has gone down the alphabet. I will merely call attention to 
a few of these publications which are of particular interest 
to the student of German- American history. 

There is, first of all, the long series of books intended ex- 
pressly for the guidance and information of the emigrant. 
Most of these are compilations of very inferior value, but a 
few should be mentioned as of a superior character. Emi- 
nent among them is a little work by Gottfried Duden, who 
lived for some years on a farm in Warren County, Missouri. 

His lively and somewhat romantic descriptions of life in the 
woods and prairies of the frontier were instrumental in bring- 
ing to this country an unusually large number of Germans, 
especially from the well-to-do and educated classes, some of 
whom afterwards became prominent in various walks of life. 
Another book of special interest belonging to this class is 
Aussichten fiir gebildete Deutsche in Mord-Amerika, by 
Franz Loeber, which addresses itself especially to emigrants 
of the educated classes.^ 

Among books with more or less serious scientific or politi- 
cal purposes should be mentioned Franz Loeher's Geschichte 
und Zustiinde der Deutschen in Amerika. This was the first 
attempt at giving a connected history of the (Jerman- Ameri- 
cans, from the arrival of Pastorius and his fellow-pilgrims 
down. But the i)rineipal object of the volume is to promote 
the plans then largely entertained for concentrating all Ger- 
man immigrants in the Northwest and gradually creating a 
purely German State. Of tlie very large number of books of 
travel appearing before the civil war a few arc mentioned in 
the note, which are particularly important for the student of 
our subject.^ 

I Gottfried Diulon, Bericht iibt^r eino Koiae nnch deu weatlicben Vereinigton St«ateu 
Kord-Amerika*H iind eineii niehrjiibrigcn Aufenthftlt am Missouri (in dt'u Jiihreu 1824, 
1825, 1826, und 1827). Elborfeld, 1820. 8vo. Pp. 4U4. 2d editioD, Itonn, 1834. 

Franz Looher, Aussichten fur {;ebilUet« Dcutj<cbo in Nord Amerika. Berlin. Jnlins 
SprinjrtT, 1853. 12ino. Pp. 91. 

Julius Frocbel, Auswaudcrfr-Bibliothek. Vcrzeicliniss der in den Ictxtcu xehn Jahren 
orscliienouen Scliriftcu i'iir Auswaudurung. Kudolstadt, 1852. Svo. Pp. 33. 

''Franz Lochcr, (ioscbicht4) and Zustiinde der Deutscben in Amerika. Cincinnati, 
KsRcrs Su Wulkop; Leipzig, K. F. Koohlcr, 1847. Pp. 544. 2(1 edition. Gottiugen, 1855. 

J. H. Hooker, Sociale und politiscbo Zustiinde in den Vereinigtoo Staatcn. 

V. Uracht, Texas Im Jabre 1849. Elbcrl'eld, 1849. 


A class by itself might be formed of the publications of the 
disapi)oiiited. The most important of these are the Atlan- 
tische Stadieu, in which numerous educated immigrants found 
vent for their sorrow in the fact that the real world was quite 
different, even in America, from what they had fancied it in 
their enthusiastic dreams.* 

The publications of various ecclesiastical bodies, both in 
this country and in Europe, are very rich in material. Only 
a few of them are mentioned below.' 

Considerable light is thrown on the movement by the pub- 
lications issued by the various German goverments. A few* 
of these are sjiecifled below.* 

During the last thirty years the amount of material waiting 
to be collected and sifted is even larger than during the pre- 
ceding period. But enough seems to have been said to call the 
attention of scholars to a field of inquiry which is still practi- 
cally in virgin condition. 

Moritz Busch, Wanderuogen zwiacbon Htiilnon unci MiH8iH«ippi. J. Z. Cott«, 8tutt{;art 
un<] Tubiii;;en, 1854. 2 vols. 8vo. Pp. 390, 381. 

Dr. J. 0. Buettner, Briefe aii8 uod ftber dio Vorvinigieii Staaten. 2 vols. Dn^silcu, 1846. 

O. V. Dwingela, Reise-Berichte iiber <)io Vereinigteii Staaten von Nonl-Auierika, 1843 
II ml 1844. 

JaliusFroobel, AaM Amerika. Erfabrun)(on, Reiseu iind Studieu. 2 vols. Lei pzig, 1856. 

JuHua Froebel, Die deiitHcho Auawunderiin){ und iliro oultur-hiHtoriacho Bodetuoug. 
Leipzig, Franx Waguer, 1858. 8vo. Pp. 103. 

•Tuliuti Froebel, Amerika, Kuropa uud dio politischeu OcHichtspunkte der Oegenwart. 
BerIiD,J. Springer. 1850. 12rao. Pp.213. 

•Talias Froebel, Bin Lebenslanf. Eriunerungen oinea Acbtzigjahrigcu. 2 vols. 

W. Grisson, Beltriige zar Charakteristik der Vereinigtou Staaten. Hamburg, 1844. 

Dr. Wilbelni Frank, Dotitachlaud in Amcrilcn, 1839. Cauael. 

Alexander Ziegler, Skizzen einer Beise durcb Kordaraerikaund Westindien, rait beson* 
derrr Beriicksicbtfgung dea doutacbeu Elenientett, etc. Dresden und Leipzig, Amohli, 
1848. 2 Tola. 

Ferdinand Roemer, Texas. Bonn, 1849. 

H. Ehrenberg, Fabrten und Scbicksale eiues Doutacben in Texns. 1845. 

< AtlantischoStudien. Yon Deutscben in Anierika. 8 vols. 8vo. Guttingeii, 1853-1855. 

Dr. A. Kiraten. Ski2zen aua den Vereinigten Staaten von Nordanierika. Leipzig, Brock- 
bau9,18S4. 16nio. P9.347. 

* Berlchto der Leopoldinen-SUflung iiu Kaiserthuni Oesterreicli. Anon. Gegenwiirti- 
gar Zitstand der katb. Kircho in den Vereinigten Staaten von Nori!a:iierika. Send- 
acbreiben an Herrn v. Beckedorf. Regenabnrg, 1842. 

Dr. Joseph Salzbacber, Heine Keiao naob Kordamerika ini Jahre 1842. Vienna, 1845. 

Dr. Fricdrich Beae, Abrisa der Gehcbicbte des Bisthums Cincinnati. Vienna, 1829. 

W. N. Hollenberg, Die Dcntacbeu iu Amerika. Mittbeilnngen des Berliner Vereins fiir 
die ausgewanderten Deutachen der evangeliscben Kirche iiu Weaten Nurd Amorikas. 
Berlin. Wiegandt Sc Griebcn, 1859. 8vo. Pp. 40. 

Dr. Philipp Scbair, Amerika. Die politiachen, .•«ocialen und kirchlich-religiosen Zu- 
I atinde der Vereinigten Staaten, mit beaonderer Kiicksiebt auf die Deutscben. Wiegandt 
dc Orleben, Berlin. 1854. 

* V. FUrstenwSrther, Reiao nacb d. Vereinigten StAaten von Nordaroerika, im Auftrago 
dea kgl. niederlilndiachen Gcsandtcu am deutscben Bundestage. Frankfurt a. M., 1819. 

Dio Answandemng in den Jahren 1840 bis mit 1855. In Beitriige zur Statistik der 
inneren Verwaltung des Grossbztb. Baden, Heft 5, Carlsrube, 1857. 

HIST 98 23 






By WiixiAM D. McCrackan. 

It is the misfortune of Swiss history that, although very little 
is popularly known about it, that little is almost invariably 
incorrect. There ia a widespread but vague idea that a regu- 
larly organized republic has existed in the Alps from time 
immemorial under the name Helvetia. Nothing could be more 
misleading; for, as a matter of fact, the Swiss Republic had 
no existence before.1291, at which date the three communities 
of Uri, Schwiz, and Unterwalden united in a perx)etual pact 
against the encroachments of II absburg- Austria. As for the 
Celtic tribe of the Helvetii, who inhabited parts of what is 
now Switzerland under the Roman dominion, they had no more 
to do with founding the Swiss Republic than had the Indians 
in oar own country to do with framing the Constitution of the 
United States. Around the three communities of IJri, Schwiz, 
and Unterwalden as a nucleus the Swiss Republic grew in 
coarse of time by the adherence of other communities until it 
reached its present proportions of twenty-two cantons in 1815. 
The very name of Switzerland was unknown before the fifteenth 
century, when for the first time the eight states which then 
comi)osed the Republic began to be called Die Schweiz, after 
Schwiz, which was the most pronounced of the primitive states 
in its opiK)sition to the pretensions of the nobility. While the 
Germans pronounced the name Schweiz, the French called it 
Suisse, the Italians Svizzera, and the P^nglish Switzerland — 
the land of the Switzers. Nor did the early Swiss set up a 
sovereign republic in our acceptation of the word either in 
internal or external policy. The class distinctions of the feudal 
ages continued to exist in their midst, and they l^y no means 
disputed the supreme rule of the head of the Oerman Empire 
over them, but rather gloried in the protection which this 
direct dependence afforded them against a multitude of inter- 
mediate preying nobles. It was not until 1648, by the i>eace 



of Westphalia^ that the complete independence of the Swiss 
from the German Empire was established beyond question. 

For a long time the real origin of the Swiss Eepablic was 
obscured by the story of William Tell and the traditions con- 
tained ill the so-called While Book of Sarnen. As long as the 
birth of the little mountain confederation was attributed to 
the chance of an arrow in its flight the true causes were 

But now that William Tell has been relegated to the realms 
of legendary lore, we are in i)osition to estimate the funda- 
mental causes in a direct and scientific manner. 

The three original communities of Uri, Schwiz, and Unter- 
walden appear for the first time in history during the seventh 
and eighth centuries. There are no traces of lake dwellings 
within their territory. On the Boman charts there is nothing 
but a blank for the whole region. After the fall of the Boman 
Empire, the Teutonic Alamanni slowly took possession. As 
the plains of northern Switzerland became more and more 
thickly settled, pioneers, adventurous spirits moved up into 
the then savage country that skirts the Lake of Luzem, pushed 
into the forests, and made clearings. This colonization was 
accomplished in three difterent ways: By freemen who occupied 
and tilled their own land under the immediate protection of the 
Empire, by bondmen sent out from ecclesiastical institutions 
or by bondmen in the employment of secular nobles. 

In spite of this diversity of condition the colonists were 
united in one peculiar institution, in the Association of the 
Mark, for the management of their common lands. 

I propose to strike straight for the central fact of Swiss 
independence. Here in the Association of the Mark we have 
the kernel of the nut, the germ of Swiss freedom. 

Each community set apart its almends or commons in the 
valleys and its alps or summer pastures on the mountains. 
The early patriots operated a crude system of land communism. 
In spring the cattle were driven up into the mountains to take 
possession of the grazing lands as the snow receded. During 
their absence the hay was made and housed in the valleys for 
winter fodder. Etymologists are not yet agreed whether the 
name Almend meant originally common land or fodder land, 
and historians are debating whether the use of it was intended 
in the beginning to be communistic or not. These are ques- 
tions for specialists to decide, but the effect of the system was 


patent to alL These rustics, by treating at least some of the 
total supply of laud as coiumon property, excluded the possi- 
bility of the complete monopolization of the land by the feudal 
nobility. Within the Association of the Mark the early Swiss 
learned their first lessons in self-govermeut. As it was neces- 
sary to regulate the use of the common lands, semi-agricultural, 
semi-political meetings of all the inhabitants were convened at 
stated times. These were the Landsgemeindeu, which have 
survived to our own time in several of the pastoral cantons 
and which resemble our own New England town meetings 
more closely than any institution in the world. 

Perhaps overmuch stress should not be laid upon inferences 
drawn from etymology, but this name Landsgemeiude is sug- 
gestive in itself, this gemeinde or community of the land, 
whether the German word Land be used here in the sense of 
district or in the sense of soil. 

It is therefore especially significant that the very first 
Landsgemeiude of which we have any documentary record 
met iu Schwiz in 1294 and promulgated a decree dealing with 
the subject of land tenure: The assembled people agreed to 
forbid anyone to sell or give land to monasteries or to aliens 
under pain of a heavy fine. All land thus alienatkl must 
be bought back or else confiscated by the community. The 
monasteries must pay the same taxes as all other members of 
the community or else be excluded from using the common 
lands. Aliens must pay the same taxes; nor can they exact 
any compensation from their tenants for this reason or take 
the land away from them. 

Bough and ready as these regulations undoubtedly were, 
they gave evidence of great insight on the part of the rude 
peasants. They constituted a revolt against the absorption 
of land by great ecclesiastical corporations or absentee land- 
lords, and laid the foundations for a stable, compact common- 
wealth against which the attacks of armed feudalist^ proved 

Nowhere can the historical development of the Almend and 
Landsgemeiude be studied to better advantage than in the 
community of Schwiz itself, in Schwiz, which gave its name 
to the Bepublic and its coat of arms (a white cross on a red 
ground) to be the fiag of Switzerland; within whose bound- 
aries, at Brunnen, the perpetual pact of 1291 was confirmed 
in 1315, and on whose frontier, at Morgarten, was fought the 


first battle of the war of independence against Habsbarg- 

At the outbreak of this war of independence the land of 
Schwiz, with the exception of a few estates belonging to eccle 
siaBtical and secular nobles, was common land. Karl BUrkii 
assures us, in a pamphlet entitled <^Der Ursprung der Eidge 
nossen^chaft,'' that the name of Ober- Allmig, or Ober Almend 
is still applied to the wide stretch between the range of the 
Morgarten and the lake of Klonthal, and from the Waggi 
Valley to Gersau. On this laud now stand more than thirty 
villages and hamlets. There are hundreds of houses, even 
whole villages, built on this Almend land, the houses only 
being private property, whereas the land is public. If the 
houses burn down and are not rebuilt within a specified time, 
the land reverts to the community as Almend land. 

The Swiss struggle for independence against Habsburg- 
Austria was long drawn and intermittent, but if any one event 
can be characterized as marking its beginning, it must be the 
quarrel between the men of Schwiz and the Abbey of Ein- 
sideln, standing under the ])rotection of Habsburg-Austria, 
concerning the boundaries of their Almend. 

The quarrel was one of long standing. The monastery of 
Einsidein, when founded in 934, had received lands to the 
north of the Almend of Schwiz. In 1018 the boundaries of 
the monastery were extended southward, and it was not long 
before the expanding community of Schwiz came into conflict 
with the monks. The mountaineers rallied to the defense of 
their common lands. The dispute dragged along for fully a 
century; it seemed to defy all attempts at a satisfactory solu- 
tion. Two emperors were called upon to arbitrate, Henry IV 
in 1114, and Conrad III in 1144. Both sides robbed, burned, 
and plundered, and it was not till 1217 that a temporary 
cessation of hostilities was effected by Count Rudolf I of 
Habsburg, acting in the capacity of umpire. 

This dispute over the Almend had, however, been of ines- 
timable value to the men of Scliwiz. It had united them 
against a common foe; it had taught them the first principles 
of defensive warfare, which they were destined to apply so 
brilliantly later on; their Landsgemeinde had fitted them for 
self-government under universal suffrage; the communal unit 
had been formed around the possession of common lands as a 


In 1314 the dispute between Schwiz and Einsideln flared 
np again, for in the night of the 6th of January a marauding 
band attacked the monastery, took the sleeping monks pris* 
oners, penetrated into the cellars, broke open the doors of the 
sanctuary, and in drunken fury overthrew the ornaments, 
treasures, vessels, vestments, and relics. This raid reflects 
but little credit on the men of Schwiz, but it shows the point 
of exasperation to which they had been goaded by the in- 
fringements on their Almend. 

The raid on Einsideln led to war between the men of Schwiz 
and the house of Habsbnrg- Austria, as protectors of. the 
monastery. The men of Schwiz called to their aid their con- 
federates of Uri and Unterwalden, who, under the same system 
of the Almend, had been growing up to the same status of 
local self-government and economic independence. In 1315 
Duke Leopold invaded Schwiz and was repulsed with great 
loss by the Confederates in the battle of Morgarten, The 
battle proved to be one of the first occasions in the Middle 
Ages, if not the very first, in which an army of mounted 
knights was conquered by peasants on foot. 

The ball had now been set a-rolling. Little by little Habs- 
burg-Austria was crowded out of the possessions it held on 
what is now Swiss soil. The territory it vacated acquired 
self-government — the serfs it left behind became freemen. 
The Republic of Switzerland arose — a new and startling factor 
in the European situation. 

It is not my purpose to describe the subsequent development 
of the Swiss Republic from the battle of Morgarten to the 
pi*esent day. Suffice it to insist upon the fact that the i)os- 
session of common lands was the rallying point of the early 
patriots. One can not conceive of the struggle for Swiss inde- 
pendence without this incentive, and it seems entirely likely 
that had this system of communism in land not existed at that 
period the Republic of Switzerland would not have sprung up 
in the center of Europe. Its territory would doubtless now be 
forming part of Germany, France, Italy, and Austria accord- 
ing to its linguistic divisions. 

The common lands of Switzerland have maintained them- 
selves to this day almost intact in the pastoral cantons. 

Even in the industrial cantons, where the maintenance of 
common lands encounters greater difficulties, vast tracts of 
forest and even cultivated lands are still owned in common. 


though often rented out to individuals, so that numerous small 
towns and villages actually collect no local taxes at all, and 
are able to distribute fhel to their citizens in winter. Such 
communities live on their ground rents as surely as do great 
landowners in other parts of the world. 

No one will deny that the communistic system of land ten- 
ure in Switzerland as practiced in the past and to some extent 
in the present is clumsy and antiquated, and that the same 
ends could better be served by the simple system of taxing 
land values, irrespective of improvements. But the achieve- 
ment is the thing, and that is, that the equal rights of all the 
citizens in the land are guaranteed; that the great ethical 
principle finds local expression that the crust of mother earth 
belongs equally to all the children of men. 

The real origin of the Swiss Republic, then, is to be sought 
in the question of laud tenure, not in the chance of an arrow 
in its flight. There is an impressive meaning in tliis fact that 
the land question presided at the birth of the nation, which, 
after a career of more than six hundred years, has proved itself 
to be the most enduring republic in existence. 







By Gkorgr Nobcross, D. D. 

Desiderius Erasmus was the illegitimate son of a Dntcb 
priest named Oerhard, and Margaret, the daughter of a 
physician. He was their last but not their only child. He 
was born in Rotterdam, October 27, in the year 1466 or 1467. 
As he was born out of wedlock, the poor boy had really no 
right to a surname, but fortunately he had the power to make 
a name for himself, and, according to a fashion among scholars 
of his age, he assumed in a translated form his father's name, 
Gerhard, of which Erasmus is meant for a Greek, and Deside- 
rius for a Latin rendering. 

He received his early education in the cathedral school of 
Utrecht and in a f ourishing classical academy at D^venter, 
where his brilliant natural gifts were recognized, and he was 
especially noted for his prodigious memory. Books were his 
chief delight. In his twelfth year, it is said, he knew Horace 
and Terence by heart. 

After the death of his mother, he was defrauded out of his 
inheritance by his guardians and put against his will into a 
convent, where he spent five unhappy years in monastic 

Erasmus found relief from the cloisters' irksome round of 
mechanical devotions in the study of the classics, which he 
pursued without much assistance, but following the natural 
bent of his genius. Even nt this early period he had begun to 
exercise his pen in both prose and poetry. He wrote invectives 
against the despisers of eloquence, odes to Christ and the Holy 
Virgin, and an essay on the contempt of the world in which 
he paints the corruptions of the age. 

In 1491 Erasmus was delivered from this prison life by the 
Archbishop of Gambray, a man of parsimonious spirit, who 



became his close-fisted patron, first made him his private sec- 
retary, then sent him to Paris to go on with his studies, and 
finally ordained him to the priesthood. Erasmus continued 
in the clerical profession, and remained unmarried, but he 
never had a parish. 

The Paris of that day must have had many attractions for 
such a spirit. The University was a great seat of learning; 
the very air seemed charged with sparkling wit; it was the 
study of many to make life pleasant, and the brilliant, witty, 
sarcastic youth plunged with zest into the seething world of 
the gay metropolis. Only one thing seemed to dampen his 
spirits and that was the everlasting reminder of his vows 
which he carried about with him in his religious habit. His 
cowl and frock were every moment in his way. He cursed 
the fate that had made him a monk, and daily pined for 
deliverance. We may admire Bernard of Clairvaux in the 
saintly white of his religious order, but it must be confessed 
that Erasmus was only suitably robed in a scholar's gown. 

He seemed to have lived a kind of precarious existence for 
some years until he had won a high position in scholarship, 
and his great abilities became generally known. He pursued 
his studies in the University of Paris and at Orleans. His 
favorite authors were Cicero, Terence, Plutarch, and Lucian 
among the classics, Jerome among the fathers, and among 
the moderns of his time Laurentias Valla, the commentator. 

Fond of his freedom, Erasmus chose an independent literary 
life without a regular charge, supporting himself by teaching 
and frequently accepting the patronage of the great. When 
be became famous he received liberal gifts and pensions from 
prelates and princes, and he left at his death 7,000 ducats. 
The Emperor Charles V gave him the title of royal counselor 
to the King of Spain, a sinecure X)Osition, which brought him 
an annual income of 400 guilders after 1516. 

It was an age in which authors did not receive much direct 
income for literary work. The patronage of the great, which 
is[ always a precarious support, was doled out to the authors 
of that age as a remuneration for those somewhat fulsome 
dedications in which the patron shines as a very Maecenas. 
But Erasmus certainly had less reason to complain than many 
others; he was treated very generously by his chief publisher, 
Froben, of Basel, and the donations which he received firom 
the rich and great were neither few nor small. 


We left Erasmus in the University of Paris chafing under 
the limitatiitns of his lot, plunging into the great libraries, 
writing sarcastic epigrams, making the acquaintance of dis- 
tinguished men, acting as tutor to young noblemen, and bathing 
his soul ill those fountains of perennial delight to the scholar, 
the ancient classics of Oreece and Bome. 

Here it was that, when about eight and twenty, lie made the 
acquaintance of two young noblemen from England who were 
traveling on the Continent, Lord Mountjoy and one of the 
dreys. Lord Mountjoy was wonderfully attracted by the 
brilliance of the young Dutchman ; he took him for his tutor, 
carried him over to England, and introduced him at the court 
of Henry YIL At once the fortunes of Erasmus were made. 
He charmed every one, and he himself was delighted with the 
country and the people. For a time, at least, he praised every- 
thing English except their beer. 

In many of the young men lie fonnd his own passion for 
learning. An amusing account is given of his first meeting 
with Sir Thomas More, who, though several years his junior, 
was already no^cd for those brilliant qualities which have 
made liis name immortal in English history. 

Shortly after his arrival, when dining with the lord mayor 
of London, Erasmus noticed on the other side of the table a 
young man of nineteen, slender, fresh colored, with blue eyes, 
coarse hands, and the right shoulder somewhat higher than 
the other. His features indicated affability and gaiety. Pleas- 
ant lests were continually dropping from his lips. If he could 
not find a joke in English, he would in French, or even in Latin 
or Greek. A contest of wit in all these languages soon ensued 
between Erasmus and the English youth. The former, aston- 
ished at meeting with anyone who could hold his own against 
him, exclaimed in Latin, ''You are either More or nobody,'' 
and his young opponent quickly replied in the same language, 
''You are either Erasmus or the devil." More flung himself 
into the arms of Erasmus, and from this time they became fast 

Yonng More was an excellent example of the best fruits of 
the old system. He was full of fun and frolic, but withal so 
serioas that at this very time he was delivering lectures on 
Augustine's ^' City of God" before a numerous audience com- 
posed of priests and aged men. The thought of eternity had 
seized him ; and being ignorant of God's righteousness, he went 



about to establish one by liis own effort. He scrapalously 
observed all the fasts of the charch, and subrjecteil himself to 
the scourge every Friday. 

Sir Thomas wished to save his soul, but he also wanted all 
that this world can give. He had a suspicion that that was 
impossible, and so he submitted to fasts and vigils, wore a 
shirt of hair cloth, mortified his body with small chains next 
his skin, in a word, ho immolated everything in order to pre- 
serve that self which a real regeneration alone can sacrifice. 
But despite all^ his mistakes, which were the result of his 
education, he was one of the best and brightest men of his 
age, and ho had the'courage and dignity to go to the block at 
last rather than commit the political and religions heresy of 
admitting that Henry VIII was the head of the Church of 
Christ in England. 

But now can you imagine the iK>or student enjoying the 
pleasant x>ortion which he found in the manor houses of the 
rich and the splendid palaces of the nobility in the merry 
England of that dayT Sir Thomas More became his dearest 
friend, and Warhaui, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, 
Fisher, afterwards Bishop of Rochester, Colet, the famous 
dean of St. Paul's, the great Wolsey himself, all recognized 
and welcomed the rising star of European literature. 

Money flowed in upon him. lie was petted and flattered. 
Warham gave him a benefice in Kent, which was afterwards 
changed to a pension. From London he was carried over to 
the classic shades of Oxford, with its more than a score of 
colleges combined in that republic of letters, the great Univer- 
sity. Here he taught and studied, happy as a humming bird 
over a bed of flowers. 

Meanwhile his reputation as a writer was spreading over the 
world. Latin, the language in which he wrote, was iu univer- 
sal use among educated people. It was almost the vernacular 
of the best society iu Europe, and no other living man was so 
perfect a master of it. He knew it better than even his own 
mother tongue. He made it truly a living language, and used 
it as a witty patrician of Rome in the fourth or fifth century 
might have done. His satire flashed about among all existing 
institutions, scathing especially his old enemies, the monks, 
while the great secular clergy, who hated the religious orders, 
were delighted to see them scourged and to find themselves 
playing the r61e of patrons of toleration and reform. 


Prince Henry when he became King was nearly as vain of 
his own scholarship as was afterwards James I. He had been 
intended by his father for the See of Canterbury, and so had 
received an education to fit him for the Church. When his 
elder brother Arthur died all this was changed, except Henry's 
pride of theological learning, which afterwards prompted him 
to measure swords with Luther, and won for him the title of 
*^ Defender of the Faith." It is not strange that Henry ad- 
mired Erasmus and tried to keep him in England. His father, 
Henry YII, offered Erasmus a house large enough to be called 
a palace, and a x>ension which converted into modern money 
would be $5,000 per year. 

Erasmus, however, did not like to give up his liberty. He 
declined the King's terms, but his patron, Mountjoy, settled 
a pension on him instead which suited him better. He could 
now move about as he pleased. Sometimes he was at Oxford, 
then again at Cambridge, aud when the humor took him back 
again to Paris. Now we hear of him staying with Sir Thomas 
More at Chelsea, and now going with Deau Colet on a pil- 
grimage to Becket's tomb at Canterbury, but always study- 
ing, always gathering knowledge, and throwing it out again, 
steeped in his own mother wit, in brilliant essays or letters, 
<^ which were the delight and the despair of his contemporaries." 

Fronde gives us a characteristic scene in this first visit of 
Erasmus to England. He went with Dean Colet to Becket's 
tomb. At one of the shrines in Canterbury he was shown an 
old shoe which tradition called the saint's. The incident 
afterwards furnished the text for one of his biting sayings: 
'< We kiss the shoes of the saints, but we never read their 

In 1505 he edited Yalla's Annotations to the Kew Testament. 
In the preface to this work he called for a return to the Greek 
text and its grammatical exposition as fundamental to a proper 
understanding of the Scriptures. 

It was in 1506 that Erasmus visited Italy. We can hardly 
realize what an attraction that sunny clime must have had for 
him. It was the classic land of Virgil and Horace, of Cicero 
and Seneca; the mother of every humanizing influence which 
for two thousand years had reached the North. 

It had been the daydream of his life, but hitherto the requi- 
site means had been wanting. ^^I have a longing to visit 
Italy," he wrote as early as 1498, '*but it is not easy to fly 
HIST 98 ^24 


The Archduke of Brabant made him oue of his couuselors 
and subsequently the Emperor, Charles V, gave him a similar 
rank in his court, which was the royal way of giving him a 
pension as a man of letters. From 1515 to 1521 he resided in 
Brussels, Antwerp, or Lou vain. In this latter place he owned 
a house and might have made a permanent home here but for 
the hatred of the monks, who embittered his life with their 
acrimonious attacks. He sought and found a quiet place for 
work in Ba9el, and the liberality of his publisher, Froben, the 
kindness of the bishop, and the magistrate, and, above all, the 
congenial company of the men connected with the university 
made the place peculiarly agreeable to his fastidious tastes. 

Offers of church preferment in various countries continued 
to be made to him, but he was too jealous of his liberty to 
listen to these flattering calls. His circumstances had im- 
proved so much by pensions from the great, the presents which 
were showered upon him, and the sale of his books that he 
was now in a position to refuse all proi)osals which would have 
interfered with his cherished independence. 

He was now at the height of his power and influence, and 
no man ever knew better how to maintain a marked literary 
supremacy. The general ardor for the restoration of the arts 
and the advancement of learning created an aristocratic pub- 
lic of which Erasmus was the acknowledged head. If Luther 
8i)oke to the common people, Erasmus had the ear of the edu- 
cated class. 

His friends and admirers were distributee! over all the 
countries of Europe, and presents were continually arriving 
from small as well as great; now it was a donation of 200 
florins from the Pope, and now it was sweetmeats and comfits 
from the nuns at Cologne. Perhaps no man in Euroi)e has 
ever since that day occupied exactly the same iM>sition. He 
stood at the very center of the Humanistic efforts of his time, 
and was indeed himself the most important individual, in a 
literary sense, of the age. Wherever he went the most flatter- 
ing reception awaited him. Princes, scholars, bishops, cardi- 
nals, even the Pope, vied in doing him honor. 

It was during this period that Erasmus published the Col- 
loquia Familiaria, or Familiar Colloquies, which iierhaps has 
been the most read of all his writings. It contains the keen- 
est sarcasms and wittiest sallies against conventual life, 
fasting, pilgrimages, and the worship of saints. The form of 


the dialogue was well salted to his parpose, tboagh it doabt- 
less was at times the occasion of hits too coarse for oar mod- 
ern taste. Bat this brilliant banter and ridicale prepared the 
way for the graver attacks of the reformers. He escaped the 
charge of heresy, as a writer could hardly be held responsible 
for the opinions expressed by fictitious characters. Neverthe- 
less, the Sorbonne condemned the Colloquies, and the Inqui- 
sition placed them in the first class of prohibited books. 

The most important of all his works appeared in 1516; this 
was his Greek Testament. It had a decided influence on the 
Beformation. Besides the Greek text it contained a Latin 
translation, which departs quite largely from the Vulgate. 
To this were added notes to explain the meaning of the origi- 
nal and to justify his departures from the Vulgate. The work 
was prefaced with a dedication to Pope Leo X to stamp it 
with the sanction of the Church. 

It is easy for our modem critics to point out the defects of 
this brave pioneer work. No one was more conscious than 
Erasmus himself that the work was precipitated hastily upon 
the public, but he felt the time had come when the original 
text should be laid before the world of scholars. That he was 
right became speedily manifest by the avidity with which this 
literary treasure was bought and studied. Within a few dec- 
ades thirty unauthorized reprints were made, and Erasmus 
himself sent out four more editions. Luther's translation was 
based upon the second edition. It was this very year that 
Zwingli began to preach the pure gospel from the Greek 

In 1517 he began to publish the '< Paraphrases" of the 
Epistles and Gospels, which also exerted a powerful influence 
upon the movement in the Church for its reformation. In all 
these writings Erasmus was in many points the precursor of 
the Reformers. His satire against the abuses and corruptions 
of the Church was keen and bold, but his opposition to the 
degraded state of the Church, as he saw it, proceeded from 
sesthetic feeling rather than moral indignation. 

He held the true position with respect to the Holy Scrip- 
tures, which he insisted must be the standard of doctrine and 
life in the Church. But he differed from the Reformers in other 
points equally important. He had no use for Luther's doc- 
trine of justification by faith. He was not willing to break 
with the Catholic Church. He dreamed that he might remain 


in it and work its reformation by the weapons of remonstrance 
and ridicnle. 

Erasmus was indeed a privileged character. He lectured 
princes, prelates, and scholars. Even the Pope liimself had 
to take his turn in listening to the plain talk of this autocrat 
of letters. It has always been a wonder how plainly Erasmus 
could speak to all classes. 

When the storm burst his natural place would have been 
beside Luther. He had been the honest advocate of reform 
when Luther was a child; why should he hesitate nowT The 
confession is a sad one, but it was not in the man to run the 
risk. As the tempest rose he could only stand still in uncer- 
tainty. As Mr. Froude has well said, <<The responsibilities of 
his reputation weighed him down.^ The Lutherans said, 
"You believe as we do." The Catholics said, "You are a 
Lutheran at heart; if you are not, prove it by attacking 
Luther," but now he would not take sides. The truth was he 
did not quite agree with either party. 

Erasmus grew impatient. He declared, what some men 
have found it hard to believe, that he had not read the writings 
of Luther. But after all it is possible that he simply told the 
truth. It is undoubtedly true Erasmus thought he could 
learn nothing from Luther. He knew the general drift of 
what the Saxon monk was insisting upon with such vehemence, 
and why should he wade through so much for which he not 
only had no taste, but an absolute aversion. 

Erasmus was especially sad over the prosi)ect of letters. 
He had dreamed of quiet reforms, the result of learning and 
light, of wit and ridicule. He thought that with the increase 
of light the Church would forsake her corruptions and reform 
herself, but now he began to despair of any such peaceful 
issue. " Now there is no hope for any good," he wrote to Arch- 
bishop Warham in England. "It is all over with quiet learn- 
ing, thought, piety, and progress; violence is on one side and 
folly on the other, and they accuse me of having caused it all. 
If I joined Luther I could only perish with him, aud I do not 
mean to run my neck into a halter. Popes and emperors must 
decide matters. I will accept what is good, and do as I can 
with the rest. Peace on any terms is better than the justest 

The last period of his life was marked by a complete rupture 
with the Reformers, though many of them attributed their 


emancipation from the dominion of the Ghnrch to his writings. 
It was the oft-rex)eate(i reproach of his enemies that '^ Erasmns 
laid the egg which Lnther hatched out." But perhaps the 
sturdy Saxon monk was as little iuf uenced by the writings of 
Erasmus as any of the Reformers. He early detected the fact 
that the elegant scholar did not <' sufficiently exalt Christ and 
the divine grace," and within live or six years of the time 
when Luther nailed his theses to the door of the Castle Church 
in Wittenbarg there was an open breach between them, and 
Luther henceforth regarded Erasmus as ^'a sceptic and Epi- 
curean, an enemy of all true religion." 

Pope Adrian, the successor of Leo X, had been a schoolmate 
of Erasmus, and when he wrote to the great scholar imploring 
his advice and help in dealing with Luther, Erasmus felt he 
must do something, and so he selected a topic which would 
hurt the Reformation as little as possible and yet satisfy the 
Roman See, and this was the genesis of his little book on 

The event revealed what ought to have been known before^ 
that Erasmus was not at home in grappling with a deep theme 
in philosophy or theology. Luther replied with vigor and 
ability, planting himself upon the Augustinian theology and 
showing that Erasmus was at heart a Pelagian. Erasmus 
had mingled his arguments with personal attacks on Luther, 
and now the Wittenbnrg doctor answered back with so much 
of sarcasm, humor, and contempt that any further connection 
between them became out of the question. Poor Erasmus had 
the experience of moderate men who please neither extreme. 
He came out in rather a weak rejoinder to Luther, and there 
the matter dropped. The Pope railed at him for really doing 
nothing against Luther, and the Reformers felt that he had 
ranged himself on the side of their enemies, and so he lost 
credit all round. 

But the Reformation broke into the charmed circle of schol- 
ars at Basel, and Erasmus hurried away. He found a peace- 
ful retreat at Freiburg, in Baden. Here ho bought a house 
and lived six years, and was treated with every demonstration 
of respect by his Roman Catholic neighbors, but he did not 
feel happy, and yielded to the solicitations of the Queen 
Regent of the Netherlands to return to his native land. He 
was doomed never to reach it. He stopped at Basel on his 
way, fell sick, and died in his seventieth year, July 12, 1536. 


As to the personality of this man of mark we have qaite 
definite information. His features are familiar to all irom 
Holbein's many portraits or their copies. He was of medium 
height, in figare well bailt and graceful. His constitution 
was extremely delicate, making him sensitive to the slightest 
changes of climate, food, or drink. His complexion was fair, 
his eyes light blue, with corresponding yellowish hair. Though 
his voice was weak, his enunciation was distinct; the expres- 
sion of his face cheerful. His manner and conversation were 
polished, affable, even charming. 

His highly nervous organization made his feelings acute, his 
temper restless, and his brain intensely active. His stomach 
was so delicate that he was very fastidious as to his food and 
wine. He could neither eat nor bear the smell of fish. He 
used to confess in a laughing way that his << heart was Cath- 
olic, but his stomach was Lutheran.'' 

Upon the whole he was a most charming man, who would 
not only have lived in honor but died in credit had his lot 
been cast iu times of greater serenity. As it was he declared 
himself the best abused man in Europe; for the old party said 
he was a traitor, and the new party said he was a coward, and 
he certainly did not please either. He passed away believing 
that all his labors were lost, but he had been building better 
than he knew, and God had used him to do a peculiar work 
which perhaps no one else could have done so well. 

It is but natural to ask why a man of such gifts and acquire- 
ments had no more power in the great work of reforming the 
Church. While it is true that he should not be judged by the 
standard of the men who followed him, and that every leader 
in a great transition falls short of the whole truth which some 
of his disciples may attain, yet I think we must see that with 
all his gifts Erasmus lacked much that was necessary to the 
true reformer. 

1. It is clear that he lacked the profound theological insight 
of Luther. Erasmus never showed much interest in theology. 
He was a critic, a linguist, a rhetorician. He was a bright 
man of the world, a natural aristocrat, with a profound con- 
tempt for men of only humble abilities. He said with a good- 
natured smile that the most of men were fools, and it was not 
necessary that a philosopher should trouble himself much 
about what they thought or believed. 

We know from his work on "Free Will," which he finally 


sparred himself to write against Lather, that he was essen- 
tially Pelagian in his views of haman nature. His opinion of 
the monks might be bad enough, bat when he undertook to 
write about human nature in the abstract he flew in the face 
of the profoundest theologians in all ages. He took such a 
rose-colored view of the powers of human nature that Gibbon 
has well said, <^ Erasmus may be considered as the father of 
rational theology." After a slumber of a hundred years, Gib- 
bon thinks the liberal views of Erasmus were revived in the 
Bemonstrants of Holland and the Latitudinarians of Cam- 
bridge in England. 

It is a common temptation, even of bright men, to under- 
estimate a department of learning of which they are ignorant. 
While it is not true of Erasmus that he flouted theology, as 
many small men of our times do, yet '^ he barely acquiesced 
in church dogma, without being compelled to investigate if 
The truth is that theological questions had no attraction for 
him. When a theological position was emphasized by party 
passion it became odious to him. Such a mind never really 
examines a doctrine like trausubstantiatioii, with all its revolt- 
ing consequences. The Ohurch teaches it, and it is swallowed 
implicitly, without curious examination. 

Erasmus never felt, as Luther or Calvin did, the awful 
urgency of that fundamental question in all religion, '< How 
shall a man be juKt with GodT" He would not leave the old 
Church; and yet we are tempted to think it was not owing to 
any profound conviction that her teaching was the truth of 
God or that her offices were necessary to salvation, as he 
finally died without the services of a priest, without the last 
offices of the Church, without either the holy eucharist or 
extreme unction, or, as one expressed it in the wretched 
monastic Latin of the day, he died ^^ sine crux, sine lux, sine 
Deus." Yes, he died without the forms of the Church, but 
invoking the mercy of Christ, which doubtless discovered 
where his real hope was founded. 

He left none of the usual legacies for masses or other cleri- 
cal x)nrposes. His little estate was given to a personal friend, 
partly for himself and partly in trust for the benefit of the 
aged and infirm, or to be spent in giving marriage portions to 
young girls, or in educating young men of promise. 

His remains were buried in the Cathedral Church of Basel, 
amid the scenes which in life had been so congenial to his 


tastes and where he had delighted to dwell antil the fdry of 
religious controversy had frightened away his sensitive spirit. 
It is a carious fact that while he refused in life to break with 
the Catholic Church his memory is dearer to us than to them, 
that he died at last among the Protestants, and his very ashes 
are guarded and cherished in a church that has long been 
consecrated to the reformed faith. 

2. A natural love of independence and quiet leisure was 
another consideration that stood in the way of his becoming a 
champion of the new views. 

His extensive and profound learning was equaled by his 
refined taste and brilliant wit, but all these qualities made 
him prefer a life of learned leisure and retirement to one of 
greater publicity. It was one thing to be feted wherever he 
went as a great scholar, and quite another thing to draw 
down upon himself the polemic ire of all the chief dignitaries 
in the Church. He could discuss the merits of a manuscript 
in a crowd of cardinals without even touching on the burn- 
ing questions which Luther had raised respecting the plan of 
salvation and the powers of the Church. It must be confessed 
that was the sort of question in which he was most interested. 

Then it is doubtless true there was a tincture of rationalism 
about the great Dutchman which helped to chill Iiis love as to 
some of the evangelical dogmatism of Luther. We can not 
forget that the skeptical spirit of Lucian had always been 
congenial to Erasmus, and he had steeped his soul in the 
atmosphere of that bantering, doubting, laughing, pagan poet 
until it is probably true that he hardly knew how much or how 
little he really did believe as to the great fundamentals of 
religion. He frankly confessed that he <^had no inclination to 
die for the sake of truth." He no doubt would in a measure 
have agreed with Lessing in his famous confession that he 
preferred the search after truth to its possession. Perhaps 
this confession would hardly do justice to the hearts of either 
of these great critics, for they both were honest in their love of 
truth; but it must be confessed they were not of the class 
of martyrs and not the kind of men God raises up to do His 
greatest work. They profoundly influenced the men of their 
age, but not in the masterful way of a Martin Luther, a John 
Calvin, or a John Knox. 

Occasionally we find a worldly spirit like the poet Goethe 
giving expression to the opinion that it would have been 


better if the work of refonning the Church had been left in 
the hands of Erasmas and the Hnmanists, bat even as impar- 
tial a critic as Mr. Fronde has confessed that in that case 
there wonld have been no Reformation. ^'If the spirit of 
Erasmus," said he, ''had prevailed it would have been with 
modern Europe as with the ftoman Empire in its decay. The 
educated would have been mere skeptics; the multitude would 
have been sunk in superstition. In both alike all would have 
perished which deserves the name of manliness." 

It is true that about elegant scholarship there is apt to be 
much selfishness. Look at Erasmus ! He was not a man with- 
out conscience, or belief in God and goodness. By no means; 
he believed in all these ; but then he is not so terribly in earnest 
as Luther is. He is light and witty ; he is bright and sarcastic; 
he is fond of society and fond of pleasure. He loves intellec- 
tual talk and polished company. He loves his elegant ease so 
much that he will not risk much even for the truth. Such a 
man does not feel, as Luther did, the danger of damnation, 
and he can not, will not, believe that other men are in such 
great danger as our Lord implied when he said to the self- 
righteous Pharisees of his day, ''Except ye repent, ye shall all 
likewise perish." 

Erasmus thought that Luther ought to have written in 
Latin when he exposed the vices of the prelates and have 
used milder language. But he had done a good deal of that 
kind of writing himself, and what did it all amount toY See 
him addressing himself with persuasive eloquence to kings 
and popes and prelates; but all his eloquence is just thrown 

3. Closely related to this consideration is another fact which 
must not be overlooked : It has been well said, " Erasmus was 
no hero and he knew it." He had neither the moral nor the 
physical courage requisite to face the risks of being a true 
reformer in such a day of peril as the beginning of the sixteenth 

By his mental constitution Erasmus was averse to enthu 
siasm or any deep emotion. He was a scholar and a critic, 
not a preacher nor an iconoclast. He could not help seeing that 
much of Luther's teaching was true, but like the friend of 
Oalileo who refused to look through the astronomer's telescope 
for fear he might see the satellites of Jupiter; so at times the 
great Dutchman refused to read the writings of Luther that 



be might not be compelled to have an opinion about them. He 
strongly disapproved of Luther's violent language, but for a 
long time he publicly and privately insisted that most of 
Luther's teachings about the corruption of the Ghureh was 
wofully true. 

" It is safe to affirm," says Dr. Fisher of Yale College, "that 
the Erasraian school would eventually have been driven to the 
wall by the monastic party, which sooner or later would have 
combined its energies; and that without the sterner battle 
waged by Luther, the literary reformers, with their lukewarm, 
equivocal position in relation to fundamental principles, would 
have succumbed to the terrors of the Inquisition." * 

But notwithstanding his natural limitations, though he had 
not the theological insight of Luther, nor the self-sacrificing 
spirit of Zwingli, nor the courage of Calvin or Knox, yet the 
Church and the world are much the better and the wiser for 
his life and labors. 

Erasmus was preeminently the witty man of his age. His 
bright sayings which still float upon the sea of literature were 
even more appreciated in his own times than in ours. It is 
perhaps the misfortune of the witty man that with the gener- 
ality he never gets credit for real serious principle. When 
the name of such a man is mentioned the majority smile, 
serious men look grave, and the stupid shake their heads. 
Erasmus has not escaped the fate of the men of his class, but 
in spite of all his faults we can not but thank God that He 
raised up the genial and loving man, the liberal and hopeful 
Christian, the bright and witty scholar, Desiderius Erasmus 
of Rotterdam, the Prince of the Humanists. 

> Hltt. Ref., p. 132. 





By Mi88 Mary R. W. Stubbkrt. 


It is possible the new historical tripos is of interest to his- 
toncal stadents in America, especially as it concerns our 
common history. Perhaps it is best studied as part of the 
system to which it belongs. Here we touch a tiresome subject. 
Examinations have become a science so formal that we sigh 
for a code. But a code of examiuatious as they are coukl 
never be, because they are so fluctuating. Could there be a 
code of examinations as they ought to bef Suppose they 
ought not to be at all, that it is for our sins they exist? The 
problem then becomes: Given examinations a necessary evil, 
to search for such as make for intellectual righteousness. We 
had better limit our present hunt to Cambridge degree exami- 
nations. To look among Oxford responsions, mods, and 
greats; to glance along the Scotch scale of torment; to study 
the variations London has accomplished, is beyond both our 
skill and our patience. It is true that no multitude of colleges 
chartered to give degrees afflicts Great Britain, but the uni- 
versities multiply degrees and certificates more and more. It 
is true the smallest certificate has intrinsic worth, but the lay 
mind no longer recognizes the value at sight, so wide is the 
possible selection. 

"The senate creates and governs triposes according to its 
pleasure.'' I write at Cambridge advisedly; for outside the 
degree examinations is a mass of others, concerned either with 
extension work or the various locals. The former is a philan- 
thropic effort to help home study. The locals are interesting 
as development in technique;. In them the university is 
responsible for the tests of a certain quantity of work, not for 
the work itself, nor, what is more, for the education. The 
highest local examination is claimed by some as equivalent to 



a poll degree. As matter of fact it is not a jh)U, and none of 
these various forms imply Cambridge residence. This resi- 
dence is a most important part of university training, and it 
is the most invariable. Triposes may and do vary, but none 
ever entitles a candidate to a degree before his ninth term of 
residence. If you be so phenomenal as to become, as far as 
examinations go, senior wrangler in your sixth term, your col- 
lege must see that you are kept out of the mischief proverbial 
to idle folk during the remaining three terms. Fiddling or 
dancing would do— only you must stay "up." The almost 
certain probability is that the student who passed his tripos at 
the end of his second year would not trouble his tutor to find 
him employment. 

Briefly, we may attempt a sketch of the Cambridge system. 
First, there are two examinations, one in your own college for 
matriculation; one in the university, the previous or "little 
go." They are common to all students except a few who have 
distinguished themselves before coming up to Cambridge. 
Tripos candidates must add an examination in one of three 
additional subjects, or else an equivalent higher local. Next, 
each student becomes a candidate for the ordinary degree, or 
for the tripos, on his chosen subject. If for the former, he has 
during his three years two more examinations, a general and 
a special. If these be, as always in the general, of two parts, 
the two need not be taken at the same time. Ko part of the 
general may come earlier than the end of the first year of resi- 
dence. The sx)eciai ought to come later in the third year. 

The poll men have their own lectures, their own examina- 
tions, and the demands of the university upon them are strictly 
limited. A poll examination is on set books only, not on sub- 
jects generally. It is the suitable test for the athlete who 
comes to Cambridge to read if he has time, for the weak men, 
and for those whose time may have limitations less severe 
and serious than the discipline of cricket or river. The rules 
for residence are less rigid than for the tripos student. Each 
must keep within the precincts three-fourths of the required 
nine terms; but the poll man is not required to make consecu- 
tive the eight terms previous to his final special. His exami- 
nations are more like many of the American ones; they are 
in sections, and each one passed counts in qualifying for the 
ordinary degree. Also he is allowed further trial if the first 
be a failure (till seven times or more if need be). The tripos 
is based on a different principle. It is a test of the mental 


assimilation accomplished iu three years. The student's entire 
andergraduate work is ventured upon it. There is no second 
trial, except that an occasional allowance is made for iildess. 
Part 1 of some triposes may be taken iu the second year- 
Part 1 of no tripos may be taken later than the third year- 
Part II of no tripos may be taken earlier than the third year. 
You can not pass a tripos on cram alone. It covers too long 
a i)eriod of study and involves too much indei>endeut effort. 
There is constant practice in written work for your lecturers 
and ^'coaches" (private tutors), and each year has a set of 
intercollegiate examinations called Mays, which show a stu- 
dent's progress; but the university recognizes nothing between 
the previous and the tripos, and only the university gives a 

By the way, we may note that the name of the honor degree 
examination has nothing to do with its meaning. It is called 
a tripos from the stool or ^< tripod" on which the disputing 
bachelor sat when keeping an exercise. This <<ould bachilour'- 
seems to have been sufficiently lively to need the supervision 
of the senior proctor. The "ould" refers only to academic 
status. This ^^bachilour" then disputed for the university 
with ^^tho eldest son" (the foremost of the questionists), and 
also with " the father" ('* the delegate of the college on whom 
it devolved to present the candidates"). The steps by which 
a three-legged stool became an examination are not our 
present purpose. Mr. Bass MuUinger has traced them neatly 
for us. 

There seem to have been no examinations at Cambridge 
before the Hanoverians came into England. As late as Water- 
loo they were charmingly rudimentary. Among the treasures 
of the university library is a delightful account of Cambridge 
iu the early nineteenth century, fully illustrated. Colleges, 
trees and meadows, the senate house, library, and university 
church are sketched in their warmest colors. Doctors, masters, 
bachelors, noblemen, fellow commoners, pensioners, and sizars 
are pictured, each in his distinctive dress. 

It is with a very bad conscience, indeed, that you search for 
examinations amongst the letterpress of this gay Cambridge. 
It seems to have no part or lot with such things. However, at 
the end of the last volume you find a small statement. It 
appears that before taking the mngic ^^ B. A." a man was sub- 
ject to two statutable exercises, ad respondendum questio^ii, 
HIST 98 25 


two sicts and two oppouencjes. "These, in part, were some- 
times dispensed with and kept by what was termed huddling^ 
Further (this is not dispensable), there was a public examiiia* 
tiou before six examiners for five days in Lent. And the author 
gracefully remarks, "For the nature and method of this very 
arduous and important examination we beg leave to refer our 
leaders to the University Calendar." At 5 o'clock of the laBt 
day the examination is concluded, and a select number (at 
least thirty) of the queationista "who have most distinguished 
themselves are recommended to the proctors for their appro- 
bation and their names set down according to merit and 
classed in three divisions, viz, wranglers, senior optimes, and 
junior optimes, which constitute the three orders of honor. 
The rest also are arranged according to merit, but beiug 
excluded from the list of preeminence, are thrown together in 
common estimation uuder the vulgar appellation of OinoWoi^ 
the multitude." 

The account shows the development attained by examina- 
tions in 1815, and it may not be amiss to bear it in mind as we 
study them in 1897. Perhaps we may wonder what they have 
fed on that they should grow so great, but we may hope to find 
them more serious than fantastic, possibly a feature of the 
time which is not^n de siecle. 

Our student of 1897 seeks a degree in law or medicine, or in 
one of the subjects of the wider faculty of arts. His first 
duty is selection among many lines. To take a first in a tripos, 
esi)ecially if marked with the precious stars that count each a 
distinction, is still the highest honor; but the triposes now are 
ten. If your school be mathematics you may still be the king 
of the year — the senior wrangler. If your tripos be mathe- 
matics, classics, science, theology, law, history, languages, 
you may take a first. It is not now that you are among, say, 
the best thirty of the university, be they ever so bad, but that 
you have actually done first-class work in your subject. Below 
the thirds you still belong to the vulgar multitude^receive 
your degree among *'the aggregate" — and are degraded to the 

It appears that the philosophy of both the tripos and the 
ordinary degree is practical. Usually the undergraduate has 
but three years. Better devote them to learning to learn one 
subject. The acquisition of facts is not the point; the special- 
ization implied in even the ordinary degree is not the point 



It is the discipline. Yoa are to learn to focus your powers by 
mathematics, classics, science, or history, as the case may be. 
Tbe attainment of this mental habit is the aim of the training, 
especially of the tripos, which also lays the foaudation for 
progressive work by life students. The tripos candidate is to 
strengthen and temi)er his mind. If it were credible that 
ignorance would do this best, he might purposely be examined 
in what he did not know. His business is to learn not facts so 
much as methods and principles. As the poll degree is a ques- 
tion of books, the tripos is one of subjects. 

The ten triposes are: (1) Mathematical, (2) classical, (3) moral 
science, (4) natural science, (5) theological, (6) law, (7) historical, 
(8) oriental languages, (9) mediaeval and modern languages, 
(10) mechanical sciences. 

We will venture to give a slight sketch of Nos. o and 7, 
theology and history. Of the remainder it may be noted that 
some admit practical work as part of their examination. Nat- 
ural science does so largely. Modern languages, while it gives 
no place in class for pronunciation in reading aloud of modern 
French or German, or for writing them from dictation, allows 
a mark of distinction for proficiency in these respects. Moral 
science is considerably concerned with political economy. 

In the mechanical sciences, out of ten subjects in Part I, five 
are practical -, out of five in Part II, three are practical. A 
distinction is allowed for special proficiency in one or more of 
the subjects. Thus, to test a gas-engine cleverly or hold a saw 
smartly helps make a star for you. Even in the papers there 
is much of practical application. Beams, boilers, and bridges 
are grejitly en Mdeiice. The following are copied from the oral 
and practical examination: Tests of struts and shafts; plot- 
ting plans and sections: adjustment and use of tools, including 
the commoner machine tools; practical electricty. 

Except law (obviously formal) and oriental languages (usu- 
ally studied for a practical purpose), what remain? There is 
pure mathematics, still taught in the spirit of the great Sad- 
lerian professor, Arthur Cayley, whom some counttxl one of 
the greatest mathematicians the world has known. There is 
philosophy, whose motive impels it beyond ^^ methodical think- 
ing." There is classics, a tripos by itself, and Hebrew, a part 
of the theological and of the oriental languages tripos. Men 
still learn Greek that they may know Plato, and Hebrew that 
they may know the prophets. 


The schools vary in their students from year to y«ar. 
Classics has uever been ^'a refuge for the destitute.'^ Moral 
science used to be. Now, says one of its most briUiant mas- 
ters, "We send all those people to history.'' The fact is that 
weaker students can scrape through in any tripos and acqaire 
possibly a third, probably an ordinary. 1?o take a first in a 
tripos is another story. Sometimes it is one man and one 
woman that make the historical first for the year. King's is 
rarely without one first class. The little habit has come to be 
called "the divine right of King's." But one woman bas 
attempted the theological tripos and but two have douo the 

The theological tripos is a training in sacred things. The 
teaching from these things is not its primary object. Dogma 
is theory to account for fact, not teaching with authority. 
The aim is not so much that of a divinity school wheuce to 
send out clergy as that of a science school whence to send out 
students of the sacred books. The theological tripos is as 
well ada)>ted to the layman as to the priest, and, in a sense, 
is as well fitted to the Brahman as to the Christian. It does 
not concern itself with persoual belief. Its aim is to tea^h 
men to work upon sacred subject-matter. As the books whence 
the ^lethod is learned are the Scriptures of the Jew and of the 
Christian, there is mucli that is Jewish and much that is Chris 
tian incidentally ivcquired in acquiring method; but it is the 
method that is the motive. 

As the books can be known only in thclight of their history, 
a good deal of Hebrew and of Christian church history, includ- 
ing history of Christian doctrine, ^nust bo acquired. But to 
send men down able to study the sacred text for themselves is 
the purpose of a school still dominated by "The Great Cam- 
bridge Three" — Liglitfoot, Wescott, llort. The basis of the 
Cambridge theology is historical and critical. The tests arc 
two examinations. Neither may be taken before the third 
year of residence. Vnvt II may only be taken after Part I. 
Usually, when taken at all, it is in the fourth year. As in 
mathematics, Part I entitles* to a degree. Its examination 
continues through four days, twenty-four hours in all. The 
candidate must show his competence, first, to study the Scrip- 
tures in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek; second, to discriminate 
between doctrinal, historical, prophetical, and poetical writings 
and apply to eiu;h its own critical methoil; third, to compare 
difleient renderings of the same passage; fourth, to translate 


into the languages of the sacred text as a sign of his command 
of their significance; fifth, to search original authorities in the 
contemporary history and literature of any period set one to 4G1. 
Part II is rarely taken. It has four sections, whose subjects 
are, respectively, the Old Testament, the New Testament, his- 
tiiry and literature, dogmatics and liturgiology. 

In his examination of eight days the candidate must satisfy 
his examiners in two of these sections. As the work in Sec- 
tions I and II is critical study of the text, a candidate in them 
mast have marked attainments in Hebrew and Greek. Sec- 
tion III involves two historical periods, from the death of Leo 
the Great to the present time, each with its illustrative docu- 
ments. Section IV means the historical study of doctrine and 
of Cvhristian worship. There is for each part an additional 
tliree hours of essay work to test the candidate's power of 
expression in subjects connected with that part. 

Some will say that the theological tripos of Cambridge is 
named by what it discards. However that may be, the value 
of the training as scientific, nonsubjcctive, and fearless is 
obvious. The exclusion of any authoritative system of doc- 
trine by a university tliat yet confers degrees in the name of 
the Trinity may be regretted by some, but it is not necessarily 
a question for this particular tripos. Possibly as it stands 
it is too historical and literary to be applied theology — too 
bare of philosophy to be pure theology. But it claims to be 

The historical tripos is interesting from its own history. 
The problem was, Is the university a x)]ace to train men for 
modern lifet Is it a place to equip men unto living! Are 
they to learn the special theories they are to practice, or are 
they to learn principles? Take history, for instance. Sup- 
|K)se there is one history science and that it is political. Does 
the history degree symbolize training in this one science, or 
does it symbolize training in the art of discerning truth from 
falsehood, certainty from doubt! The question already affect 
ing (as we have noted) most triposes in practice is to the fore 
in the history school, not only because of the nature of the 
subject, but because of the Huid condition, as yet, of historical 
theory; and it is sharpened by the fact that Cambridge has 
among its history men some who appear confident not only 
that i)olitical science can be defined, but that its definition 
includes everything necessary to a liberal education. 



The patent establishing the regius professorship of modem 
history' requires that the professor encourage ^^recentioris 
hisiorice scientiam^ linguarumque hodiernarumy tarn in scrihendOy 
quam in loquendo.^^ One party wished to tie the trijios to this < 

chair. If the chair was political, they argued, the tripos also I 

must be political — witness the patent, and the consistent con- 
duct of Sir John Seeley. But historiw scientia is not the i 
science of history but the knowledge of history. Even if such 
were its meaning it is not self-evident that the patent estab- 
lishing this chair was to define history forever in Cambridge — 
especially in the face of a few facts. The chair itself seems 
to have been placed where it was least in the way of other 
chairs. Neither do its early holders give us any clue to the 
character of their chair. It is difficult to tell why His Majesty 
set them in it, unless it were for their ignorance of history. 

Then the students arc a little vague. Some are commend- 
able as '* ornaments of Cambridge," and the first report of 
their professor hopes that they **may by their zeal and emula- 
tion in time deserve the favour of His Grace, the Duke of 

Of the 19 King's scholars in modern history and modern 
languages, all but two were studying French or Italian taught 
by foreigners. Of the remaining two, one was dead and one 
"gone from us." This report (October, 1725) appears a first 
step toward "a knowledge of foreign courts and of foreign 
languages, accompanied with English probity." 

The letter of the vice-chancellor to the secretary of state 
(May, 1724), shows the final aim was "to make the appearance 
of an English gentleman in the courts of Europe, with a gov- 
ernour of his own nation, less rare and uncommon than it had 
hitherto been, and to furnish the King with a supply of per- 
sons qualified for aflfairs." It does not appear that the char- 
acter of the chair, in any way, suggests that it had authority 
to define a great subject for a university. If, however, it had, 
tiiere remains another difficulty. On the IGtli of April, 1861, 
the Qnoen in council approved the following statute for the 
UegiuR iirofessorship of modern history. 

TlHi (Uroctione aOoctiugthe itrofessornhip, contained in tho royal letters 
patent, Si'pteniber 28, II, (ieorj^e I, and April 11, I, George II, are hereby 
repealed, except so far as relates to the appointment of the professor by 
the C/'rowu. 

• Keceivetl oilicial patont, Roll II, Geo. I, Tart I, No. 3. 


Whatever learned ideal may have floated before King 
George I, Queen Victoria appears to have abolished all the 
directions by which it was to be realized. There remains to 
seek the purpose of the chair in the nature of its subject, 
history, which the genius of great modern scholars has placed 
among the foremost of the age. 

The Queen still reserves the right of appointment. The 
liegius professor of modern history represents the Crown within 
the university in its search for truth as revealed by his high 
subject. It is to train men for this search that a tripos is 
erected by the university, as seen by the amended report of 
the syndicate, approved in the Grace that passed the senate 
February 27, 1873. The reason for which it advised the sepa- 
ration of law and history was, that << the subject of history 
is so large and various that it requires a separate and distinct 
examination." The reason for which the same report advised 
the erection of the historical tripos reads : 

The syudicate coDsider that liistory, an tbo snbject of an independent 
tripos^ requires to be placed on a wider basis than its subordinate position 
in other triposes has hitherto allowed, and believe that in this manner its 
efficacy in education may best be secured. They propose therefore that 
ancient and niedisDval history should have their due place in the tripos, 
as weU as modern history, so that history may be placed before the stpdent 
as a whole. 

In Grace 3 (historical trii)os) there is no trace of defining 
even modern history by political science, though their sphere 
may be more commensurate. It is expressly stated that re- 
lated studies are admitted for their service to history as in 
harmony with the custom in other triposes. The aim was to 
substitute none for any tripos, but to elucidate the subject of 
each and to achieve the good of treating so important themes 
as these related subjects from different points of view. 

The composition of the board for historical studies as de- 
creed by the senate is significant of the scope of these studies. 
The regius x^rofessor of modern history, the regius professor of 
laws, the professor of political economy, the Whewell professor 
of international law, examiners for the historical tripos, three 
members of the senate elected by grace. The Dixie professor 
of ecclesiastical history was added at the creation of that 
chair. The report from which we have already quoted required 
its special subjects to be selected, generally si)eaking, from the 
periods termed aucient, mediaeval, and modern, respectively. 


Such a predominance of pure history could scarcely have 
passed the senate unchallenged had that body intended a 
political tripos. Eather does it appear that the harmony of 
Cambridge historical studies was to vibrate in the chord struck 
by Lord Acton in his inaugural : 

Politics and history are interwoven, bnt are not commensnrate. Onre is 
a domain that roaches farther than affairs of state, and is not snhject to 
tho jurisdiction of governments. It is our function to keep in view and 
to command the movement of ideas, which arc not the effect hnt the cause 
of public events; and oven to allow some priority to ecclesiastical history 
over civil, since, by reason of the graver issues conceme<l, and the vital 
consequences of error, it opened the way in researelv, and was the first to 
be treated by close reasoners and scholars of the higher rank. 

The real question at issue in May, 1897, meant, Was history 
to be taught as a formal science? Even tho political men did 
not wish for an utter abstraction. The actual problem be- 
comes, Is any subject-matter less than life adequate? Can the 
unity of any living thing, of anj' progressive nation, be known 
in any one development? Tho constitution of the English 
people is both the method and the sum of their development. 
The diplomacy of Europe is both the method and the sum of 
tho interaction of its civilized States. Could you construct nn 
England from both?. Mucli less a France or an America from 
parallel materials. They will give you a French llevolution 
as the death struggle of a monarchy or as the blind x)assion 
of murderers; the American Revolution as a battle of terms. 
Each becomes a way not to do it, a mistake in the big game. 
Or try to imagine an historian of the year 3000 studying the 
United States, i)eriod 1770-1000, from the records at Washing- 
ton. Would he find more than scanty evidence that the Amer- 
icans were not heathens? Though records be such mass of 
immaculate evidence as makes history all right but for histo- 
rians, they may be such a mass as makes it all wrong but for 
philosophers. Though you grant not only that political sci- 
ence is the only history science, but that it is sharply defined, 
that will not prove it exhaustive of your subject-matter. When 
this is natural life we do not hope to learn it from any one sci- 
ence, as biology from botany. Since history claims for its 
subject life, until it be proved that life is only that of sense 
philosophers must search for us ^' those elements that reflect 
the sky." The chain whose last link is the source of continuity 
passes through the human soul. 

The note of the Cambridge school of history is yet to be 


determined in practice. The immediate question, last spring, 
that of the new tripos, was settled in the true English fasliioii 
by compromise rather than by logic, as can be seen by com- 
paring the trii)os before and after the decision. The compro- 
mise aimed at harmony among the masters in x)olitical science, 
in XK>litical economy, in economic history, and in pure history 
by a concession to each subject. It deepened the tone of the 
tripos as pure history. It was challenged as unfair to polil ical 
science, trifling with side issues in political economy, and 
unsatisfactory to historical training. 

The prime oflfender was indicted as general history. Far be 
it from any master of arts to speak discourteously of the sap- 
posed criminal. It was commendable to know something of 
so virtuous a prisoner. All good little German boys did, and 

all schoolmasters should. Indeed, ignoracc of general history 
was so grievous a failure that it appeared it could only be 
ignored, and that as notorious. The ignorance was so dense 
that even learned professors failed to pierce it. At Oxford in 
1892, one paper proved so frankly a failure that two were 
required. The action seemed to be interpreted at Cambridge 
thus: If one dose is bad, two will be better, and the end a 
school of annals. If the preparatory schools did their duty 
the undergraduate knew enough general history, especially 
general English history "which had no instrinsic value," and 
on matriculation he could proceed to such combination of state 
structure and state craft, political economy and economics, 
as with presumption of knowledge of events should confer .an 
honor degree in history. 

If the preparatory schools had not done their duty, so much 
the worse for the schools; and, what the critics of the new 
tripos did not notice, so much the worse for the university. 
The degi'ee would mean theory and practice of an unknown 
quantity. Diplomats should thus be evolved, persons fitted 
for public life. Surely a university is not a sanctuary whence 
men may be called to be historijins. The pure-history masters 
including names noted in economics felt they could not over- 
look the ignorance of undergrailutes who even in their "May" 
examinations could not do a respectable paper on English 
history; nor the effect of this in post-graduate work. 

It was at least an open question whether such a knowledge of 
general history as is worthy the attention of a university exam- 
iner be attainable in childhood and early youth. It was not for 



a Cambridge scbool to fail to diflferentiate. Whether all gen- 
er'al history is "cram" depends on the teacher. Whether no 
other history is *' cram " depends on the same person. Because 
you can cram dates of battles and lines of kings it does not 
follow that you can not cram the price of nightcaps in the six- 
teenth century, the legal quibbles of the seventeenth century, 
sheaves of treaties in the eighteenth, or prices of wheat in the 
nineteenth. When is the student to learn to search for broad 
principles that will hinder "cramt" 

Perhaps we may venture to glance at this compromise, the 
new historical tripos, comparing it with the tripos of 1889-1892. 
Instead of one examination at the end of three years, con- 
sisting of seven out of ten allotted papers (regnlations of 
1892), we have by the regulations of 1897 an examination con- 
sisting of two parts, together making eleven or thirteen out of 
seventeen allotted papers. Part I must be taken by the end 
of the second year. It is six out of eight papers. Part II is 
taken at the end of the third or fourth year. It is open to such 
as have passed Part I. It is only in cases of slow and rather 
unusual development that (other things being equal) a third 
class in Part I of any tripos is followed by a first or a second 
in Part II. In mathematics the senior wrangler himself is 
possible as a second-class man in Part 11; and most students 
who attain no higher than a second class in Part I do not even 
attempt II. 

Perhaps I need not note that the term '* class" has not the 
same sense as in an American university. It means place, rank. 
''Year" is the equivalent to the American ''class." Three 
points " locate" the Cambridge tripos student — ^his college, his 
year, his tripos. The B. A. adds his class, but drops his year. 

So much for tlie examination. How about the work itself! 
A copy of the schedule of subjects in 1892, as printed by Dr. 
Prothero in his Guide to the Historical Tripos, shows the 
plan after the debate on the admission of the general English 
history paper in 1892. This modification of plan followed the 
experience of four years in the decision of 1886, which removed 
twelve questions on English history and substituted an essay 
on some subject in English history. 

The list of examiners during these years included Bishop 
Oreighton, Dr. Maitland, Dr. Sidgwick, Professor Westlake, 
Dr. Cunningham, Dr. Prothero, and Mr. York Powell; and all 
these agreed that the experience taught: First, that the 
schools gave no adequate instruction in general English his- 



tory, and undergraduates could hardly read it for themselves 
ungnided; second, that provision was needed for aiding the 
student to acquire a really intelligent knowledge of the historic 
facts; third, that the present tripos requirement (two essays) 
did not prove the knowledge to have been acquired. There- 
fore the board recommended six short essays in place of two 
long essays. Enlarging the number, they also enlarged the 
scope of the questions. Oonstitutional and economic matter 
might now be included. In spite of a determined minority 
the senate approved the decision of the board. There were 
some who thought that the tnpos was in danger of degrada- 
tion, especially from the English history paper, which would 
begin in outlines and end in chaotic cram. 

That the other sides of history must appeal to the higher 
faculties of the mind appeared too obvious to need proof. 
That outlines (short for any general history) must appeal to 
the lower faculties appeared equally obvioas; except, if we 
may add, to those privileged to see them traced by a master. 
However, the "graces" passed November 24, 1892, and the 
degrading paper was introduced in 1894. In spite of it the 
tripos maintained so creditable a place that in 1897 a dis- 
tinguished scholar in political science could claim for this 
honor degree a very good record. It had begun with no 
faculty of its own, with no respectable settlement, "a mere 
branch lopped off from the ancient tree of law." It had never, 
like natural science, become "the pet child of the university." 
It had never received even its proper name. It should have 
been called "historico-politico." Yet in twenty-four years it 
had enabled 584 men and women to take honor degrees. 
Nineteen of the 76 firsts had been taken in the last five years 
"Many of those traine<l in the Cambridge school" were noto- 
riously devoting their lives to the study of " history or the 
cognate sciences." For some reason politics held its own or 
]K)ssibly improved in spite of its "low" company. 

The plan which the political men opposed iu 1892 they were 
eager to guard in 1897, and that for the sake of preserving the 
])olitical character of the tripos. It seemed futile to expect it 
to become purely political. The syndicate of 1872 which drew 
up the scheme establishing a separate history tripos had 
recommended "that the stndy of history should be accom- 
panied with the chief theoretical studies which find their 
illustration in history." 



The following is the scheme as it stood after 1892: 

In the historical tripos there are teu papers, allotted as follows : 


1. The constitutional history of England 2 

2. The economic history of England I 

3. Political science 1 

4. Special snhjcct (I) 2 

i (a) One special subject (II) 2 

((h) Political economy 1 

General theory of law and government : International law . 1 

G. Subjects for essays 1 

7. General English history 1 

The special subjects varied from time to time. The scheme 
obliged a candidate for a degree to acquire some knowledge of 
political science and considerable knowledge of English his- 
tory. It obliged him to such research as was necessary to de^l 
with a special subject of his own during the three years of his 
work. It gave him the option of a second special subject with 
its original authorities, or study of the theoretic subject under 
5 (b), where the reading for political economy was especially 

Its constant written work gave a fair amount of literary 
training. But it allowed a man to take a degree in history 
which was more English than Teutonic, yet too Teutonic to be 
English. His only obligatory subjects outside English history 
were such as might be involved in his special papers; and of 
the six special subjects set from 1892 to 1894, inclusive, one 
was English with special reference to domestic history, two 
were continental subjects involving English history of the 
eighteenth century. None was earlier than 493. The knowl- 
edge of any civilization before the (xoths reigned in Italy was 
accidental, dependent on the student's fancy for reading and 
the limited amount of ancient history involved in the little go 
find in the paper on political science. 

Again, even for the special subject, the university made no 
provision. Some of the college lecturers gave excellent courses 
upon the special subjects; but the university as such gave no 
lectures in ancient or mediaeval history to guide the student to 
that knowledge of his period without which he could only 
grope toward his subject. It gave no general papers in the 
tripos to test the knowledge or expose the ignorance of its 
candid<at<*s concerning anything anywhere before the fifth cen- 
tury or anything after the fifth century across the Channel. 



Yet it was for an liouor degree iu history that tliese caudidates 
were to supx)licate. 

A certain nufortuuate Eton boy, who had been so rash as to 
give a date, was asked by an accomplishes! Cambridge don 
whether it was 6. Cor A. D. He was sore puzzled, and so he 
said B. D. Picture him struggling with a special subject. 
Even for the rare student that knew his centuries the tend- 
ency was rather toward an English cult than an apprehension 
of any other civilization. 

The lioman Empire was an iiccident to which an allusion 
was proper. The future servant of the state contemphited in 
George Ts patent was not likely thus to acquire such knowl- 
edge of its long dominance in Europe as should remove his 
natural contempt for the foreigner with whom he hail to deal. 
The scheme needed development for the growth both of xx)liti- 
cal and of pure history. 

The following schedule offered in 1897 is for the new trii)os. 
It drops the general English history paper and inserts three 
general history papers on European history. It allows a wider 
course in political economy, economic history, and political 
science. The schedule reads : 

Pakt I. 


1. Subjects for an essay 1 

2. Either comparative poUtics or general Eiiropfaii history (ancic^nt). .. 1 

3. General European history (mediaeval) 1 

4. Englinh const! tntioual history to A. D. 1485 1 

5. Either EugUsh economic history or political economy 2 

6. One of five special historical subjects 2 

Pakt II. 

1. Subjects for an essay 1 

2. English constitutional history from A. D. 1485 1 

3. General European history (modern) 1 

And not less than 2 nor more than 4 of the jiapers assigned to the 
following subjects: 

4. A special historical subject 2 

5. Comparative polities I 

6. Analytical and deductive i)olitics 1 

7. International law 1 

8. Political economy 2 

9. A select subject in the history of thought; literature, or art 1 

The general history papers test the candidate's general 
knowledge of the subject of his tripos; the P^nglish coiistitu- 
tioual history his use of authorities, his grasx) of the theory 



and history of government, and (incidentally) bis knowledge 
of events; the special liistorical subject tests his more inde- 
pendent work within some given period; the essay, his power 
of discussing a subject at length as distinct from his power of 
answering a question. The selection in 2 allows a student's 
taste to decide whether he will extend his study in pure history 
or in government; that in 5 secures such economic knowl- 
edge as is necessary for all, and allows a student who wishes 
to specialize in economic science to lay his foundations for 
future .work. 

Also to hinder lazy or jierverse choice " no candidate shall 
take one of the two papers allotted to political economy or to 
a special historical subject without the other." A candidate 
not obtaining honors in Part I (viz, a candidate that has 
obtained honors in some other tripos) takes Part II, but is 
allowed freer choice of subjects. He takes one of the three 
general history papers, one of the two constitutional history 
papers; and from the pai)ers allotted to English economic 
history, Part I. And to subjects 4, 5, 0, 7, 8 and 9, Part II, he 
takes from three to five papers. The principle of Part II is 
the same as that of Part I, but the range of choice is wider 
and the opportunities for distinction are more numerous. 

It is a marked feature of both parts that the specialization, 
while suflScient for training, is sharply limited. Neither essay, 
nor special period, nor economics lends itself to loose writing. 
Research is not an undergraduate i)rivilege. Part II rather 
strengthens concentration than narrows specialization. The 
entire tripos is synthetic. 

By study of special periods it teaches you to use your 
implements; by study of general history it teaches you to 
discriminate between '' general truths and superficial truths," 
and gives you **a large number of facts and of generalizations 
from those facts'' by which to aid all historical work; by the 
study of economics it teaches you to apply the practical facts 
of the past to the solution of the i>ractical problems of the 
present; by the study of politics it gives you " such knowledge 
of the essentials of the history of thought " as is necessary to 
know *' the history of action." 

The examinations of Part I will not be held until 1899, and 
those on Part II not until 1900. Meantime the work is most 
interesting to watch. In general among the lists of books 
recommended by the board it is not easy to discriminate what 


particular parte of those that are authorities ou two subjects, 
say both law and history, are essential to your purpose; e. g. 
to history rather than to law. If your college lecturer has not 
a genius for taking trouble, your first reading is apt to be 
dreary. You wander among the minuting of jurisprudence, for 
instance, when your particular duty is to determine the senses 
of the word law. Happily, the lecturer at Trinity Hall on 
theory of law and government has the power of definition and 
the capacity for taking pains that makes your work clear. 

A. glance at Part I forces upon us the question of time. Is 
it possible in two years to accomplish the eight obligatory 
papers? According to most university authorities you ought 
not to read for more than two subjects at once. Observing 
this rule, it is not easy to accomplish Part I in two years while 
habits of university work are not matured. The early consti- 
tational history occurs in this part and is no trifle in the hands 
of Mr. Gorbett, the Doomsday authority, who has succeeded 
Dr. Prothero at King's. It appears possible that the time left 
for revision under the scheme of 1892 will not be secured in 
the working of the scheme of 1897. This would bo a serious 
difficulty, for it is not before the second reading that you pos- 
sess your subject. New subjects crowding on you to the hour 
of examination are fatal to their predecessors. 

The number of subjects gives at first sight the impression of 
"a variety show," but a study of the arrangement brings out 
the unity of the scheme and the consistency of the variety. 
In case of any wide reading on any one side a man needs four 
years rather than three, and it is possibly a mistake that the 
tripos allows no distinction for this voluntary year. Its addi- 
tion (as permissible) is a great advantage and makes a better 
foandation for post-graduate work. 

As the trii)OS guards against too narrow specialization on 
the economic side, so it does not solicit an evasion of that 
knowledge o^ political science necessary to any but a pictur- 
esque conception of the state. Such evasion appears improb- 
able so long as political science is ably taught and the other 
parts of the tripos pre so guileless of the picturesque as at 
present. Also, judging by the lectures on medineval history, 
the pure history work is not likely to lure men by its ease. 

Although it is the division into two parts that secures the 
chance of a fourth year, the additional year wa« not the reason 
for the division. The board felt that the time had come to 


extend their subject, and the examination, already enormoas 
in quantity, became quite impossible from sheer bulk. Thus 
the board adopted the practice already approved by the uni- 
versity for most other triposes, viz, a division into two part«. 
The division, however (as indicated in our sketch of the sched- 
ule), is, like that of law, simply a splitting of one huge exam- 
ination into two. It is not, like that of theology and of classics, 
divided into a general and a special part, although Part II 
is more specialized than Part I. Like law, history confers a 
degree only for both parts. 

Judging by the experience in law, second-rate men did better 
by a divided tripos. They gained both in power and quality 
between the two examinations. Again, since history was a 
difficult subject, it was better to find out before the three years 
of a man*s university career were past whether he was compe- 
tent to it. If Part I were proved hopeless at the end of the 
second year, he could be degraded to the ordinary then, and in 
his third year secure that degree in history, or (if he had no 
historical sense) in some other subject. 

The action of the board meant that history was no longer 
'<a refuge for the destitute.'^ The division also brought the 
historical tripos into harmony with the aim of all the other 
triposes (except oriental languages), viz, to encourage double 
reading. For, if a tripos have two parts, a student may take 
one part only, if he prefer, and proceed to Part II in Some other 
subject. The two part triposes are so far a check to narrow 
sx)ecialization. A course of two triposes will combine the best 
features of the German and the American systems in a method 
that is English. This is why the Cambridge training has 
unique value to an American student. 

However great the learning of the German savant whom he 
seeks upon the Continent, the methods in Germany are in many 
cases those he already knows from his home training. Again, 
the language is not his own. A foreign tongue, even if fairly 
well known, is not the readiest medium for critical study. How 
many Americans abroad for a limited time, say three years, 
are able to think in German at the beginning! 

Again, in England the American student, especially in his- 
tory, has the same motive for study as the English. The 
problem is one on whichever side the ocean we are set to work 
it out. The happiest sign of this is the gracious welcome that 
waits an American at Cambridge. If he come as an unQer- 
gnuluate, he learns to api>rehend his subject and to compre- 


h^iul a new and fine method of treatment. If he come as a 
graduate, the ablest masters guide him toward research. . The 
University Library is one of the three (Cambridge, Bodleian, 
and British Museum) at which every book published in Great 
Britain will be found. Besides this, there are the libraries of 
history, of archaeology, and of niatural science, and the college 
libraries. The last and the University Library hold some of 
the manuscript treasures of the world. Though you are more 
than 50 miles from London, a good train service takes you 
there in an hour and twenty minutes. 

Practically, the student of text and records has the British 
Museum and tbo Eecord Office within touch, sind Ely and 
Peterborough are even nearer, while the manorial and town 
records of the eastern counties are mines of treasure, xibove 
all, the dominant note of Cambridge thought is still that which 
Jolm Howard bore from the banks of the Cam to those of the 
Charles. It is not for nothing that history proves each Cam- 
bridge revolutionary. In each men differ and yet live, fulfilling 
every man his duty to God, his neighbor, and himself, not 
unhelped by his fellow-man. 

The istudent ^'coming up" for any tripos does well to bring 
bis bicycle. This machine is not yet a part of his qualification 
for either little go or tripos, but people who ride seem to 
find it a help to attainment. The Fens are the ideal country 
for the wheel, and it is making <Hhe don as extinct as the 
dodo" for part of the day. On his wheel he hardly suggests 
the cap and gown, and he is so frequently on his wheel that 
Trinity street, St. Mary's passage, and Trinity lane are rather 
deserted. He has broken with his haunts. It is no more the 
academic shades of the *< Backs" that woo him, but that wrinkle 
called the Gogs and fancied a hill. Or he spins by the dikes 
of the Fens, where once he sauntered under the limes and 
around the wilderness of St. John's. Trinity has built a 
8hed for 120 bicycles — a mere bagatelle of a stable for a col- 
lege of 6(K) and more. The latest suggestion is that Neville's 
court be appropriated. Need I say that it is a master in eco- 
uomics that finds this a use for the useless (?) arcades? 

The wheel must be owned a trial after the giving of an hon- 
orary degree. You have just seen a most impressive function 
in the senate house. The homage of the university has been 
paid to an ambassador, as to Mr. Bayard, or its wild enthusi- 
asm has been called forth by a Nausen. Or, as on the 11th of 
HIST 98 26 


last month, the archbishop of Cauterbnry and the lord chief 
justice of England have honored Cambridge by accepting a 
degree. All has been beautiful in its simple stately symbolism. 
The lowest representative of the aniversity has not uncovered, 
the King himself might not wear his cap within those sacred 
walls, unless he were vice-chancellor, college father, or proctor. 
You watch the procession of scarlet and gold, ermine and 
silver, pass out of the north porch and disapx>ear among the 
shadows of the library arcades. And then, if you be wise, yoa 
will slip down senate house passage by the gate of honor on 
to Trinity Hall, and, if you be so fortunate as to have leave, 
into its quaint library, where still cling the marks of chains 
that once bound books to their shelves, you are soon even fur- 
ther back in the long ago than when within the senate house. 
But if, alas! you take the other turn, you will come oat on 
King's Parade in time to see the archbishop and the lord chief 
justice drive off in everyday clothes. And the stately doc- 
tors in crimson and gold — where are theyt Take care, there 
is a perfectly ordinary person on a bicycle and there is a red 
bundle tied to the wheel. 


His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, as founder and president 
of St. Edmund's House, has applied for its recognition as a 
public hostel in the University of Cambridge, according to the 
ordinance of June 1, 1882. 

It is necessary to remember that the university is a corpo- 
ration to give degrees, having authority over its members, but 
not over the colleges. It confers its degrees on the fulfillment 
of certain conditions — residence and examinations. At first 
only the ofiQcial of a college might testify that a man had kept 
his nine terms and x)assed his qualifying examinations. Later 
the censor of noncollegiate students, the recognized head of a 
private hostel, the recognized head of a public hostel, were 
allowed to present supplicats for degrees. 

The ordinance of June 1, 1882, laid down general principles 
by which any particular application for recognition as a public 
hostel was to be judged, x)rinciplc8 that show a distinct varia- 
tion from the college on the one hand and the private hostel 
on the other. The college is a self-governing community, the 
heads being chosen by the fellows. There are exceptions: 
Jesus, Magdalen, Downing, and notably Trinity — a Crown 





o Xnivate hostel is goverued by its liesu!, and 

e educated in tlio university on condition tbat 

,t) always open to university inspection. The pub- 

.el has a governing body appointed by royal charter or 

*ts articles of association, not by the university. 

There appear some slight guaranties for the matters of more 
obvious government. There are practically none for develop- 
ment. Yet the mental attitude of a public hostel is posi>ibly 
antagonistic to that of the university upon whose dignity it 
supports itself. The cause is irrelevant, e. g., be it religion or 
be it natural science, the effect is contradiction to the essential 
notion of the corporate life of the university. The plea of 
toleration is equally irrelevant. The question in such a case 
is not what the university may allow any set of men to believe, 
but whether it may sacritice aught of its own unity and of its 
essential conception of the unity of knowledge. 

The public hostel has a master. Like the head of the pri- 
vate hostel, he must be a member of the senate. But his rela- 
tion to the senate, to the governing body, to his community of 
students, is not defined save by his title. On the whole, these 
regulations of June, 188^, are as flexible as the most ardent 
admirer of the English c institution could desire. Evidently 
there is a chance for case law. 

What precedents, then, have been established under the ordi- 
nance? In February, 1883, Selwyn College became a public 
hostel. Like Keble, at Oxford, it is a memorial to an honored 
member of the university to which it belongs. As he was a 
bishop in the Ohurch of England, it had been deemed fitting 
that the students, laymen, or future priest, be of that com- 
mnnion. A college founded to commemorate the Selwyns as 
famons oars would not instinctively open its doors to men who 
wished to avoid the river. 

The constitution of Selwyn is defined by royal charter, 
wherein the Queen sanctioned the desire of certain humble 
X)etitioners and loving subjects to erect, as a permanent memo- 
rial to Bishop Selwyn, a college to bear the impress of his self- 
denying character and convictions, and to aim at training 
young men in simple and religious habits according to the 
principles of the Ohurch of England. It is then to sanction a 
mode of life in accordance with the principles of the national 
church that the Crown incorporated and the university recog- 
nized Selwyn College; not to provide for religious scruples or 


technical training; not to dtfl'erentiato from the iiuiverttity 
teaching or to seclude a class from university intiuence. 

The masters of Selwyn, men of distinction, marked by their 
Cambridge spirit and trsulitions, have actually governed with 
their council somewhat as does the master of a college with 
those of the fellows, who form the governing body. Among 
the council were tlie bishop of the diocese, two university pro- 
fessors holding by the Crown, one university professor from 
the theological faculty, four members appointed by the Crown, 
one member appointed by the university. This membership, 
together with the government of the master in council, was tbe 
guaranty that the first public hostel offered the university. 

Cavendish College, an institution for very young men, 
received recognition about the same time. It i)roved a finan- 
cial failure. 

A third institution now asks recognition. The object of St 
Edmund's Uouse is ''to found, establish, endow, maintain, and 
conduct a hostel for students or college in or near to Cam- 
bridge, in which men who are destined for the secular priest- 
hood of the 'Catholic Church in communion with the See of 
Home,' may be educated as members of the University of 

The twenty- fifth of the forty-seven articles of association 
leaves the statutes free to develop. It may be noted that in 
the case of a public hostel or of a new college i>eculiar res^ioD- 
sibility falls on the university to see that the aims are not 
inconsistent with academic principles. 

The governing body has no member api)ointed by the 
Crown, none appointed by the university. The government 
rests with the visitor, who is the head of the Koman mission to 
Kngland; five ecclesiUstical sui^eriors, who are bishops of the 
same mission; and the house, i. e., the association, a body of 
twenty-five Koman Catholic priests and laymen recognized 
under the companies acts and holding the power commonly 
exercised by the governing body of a college, with this qaal- 
ification, "subject to the joint consent of the visitor and 

Where then is the ''master?" Let us look again if per- 
chance we may yet find him. 8elwyn has i)roved that public 
hostel practice does not exclude him, and by the letter of the 
regulations of 1882, theory requires him. A second perusal 
discovers the title. Master of St. Edmund's House, worn hy a 


member of the senate as by ordinance required. So we take 
courage for a third readin^^ of the articles; sarely^they mast 
contain an office corresponding to this name. Our search 
gives us an answer like that of a puzzled person to the ques- 
tion: Why is this child called John? Because that is his 
name. The master is elected by the house, but he does not 
belong to the house. His election is subject to the approval 
of the ecclesiastical superiors. None of either body need be 
menibers of the university. Once elected he is supervised 
and directed in the internal government of the college by 
the ecclesiastical superiors. As tutor he may not determine 
studies for his men as intellectual beings, but as future 
spiritual officials, and that according to the supervisors. The 
ecclesiastical supervisors shall have,i)owers 

to prescribe points of ecclesiastical discipline to which the scholars and 
stiulents shall be snbject, either within or without the college, and to 
ensure that the lectares delivered and the studies pursued ii^the college 
are suitable for ecclesiastical students. 

Bbt this is inconsistent with the tutor's allegiance to a 
university whose business is a man's iutelleetual i)owers. 

Finally the Master of St. Edmund's is dismissible at request 
of the lioase, or of his su])ervisors, <iccording to the discretion 
of the head of the Boman mission in England. With this 
same head it lies to retain him, provided he be a secular priest 
of < the Catholic Church in communion with the See of Rome," 
who has attained a Cambridge degree. 

Whatever may be the advantages of the system, it is a 
novelty in the university, and suggests a curious power of 
variation in the new institutions. The hostel now before the 
Senate practically cuts off that cardinal college feature, the 
bea^l, although it is the one organ the hostel possesses capable 
of responsibility to the Senate. A Cambridge head is first a 
ruler; the head of St. Edmund's is an executive shorn of his 
]K>wer. He is to a Cambridge head as is the President of the 
French Republic to the President of the United States; unless, 
indeed, we have sought him in the wrong place. Should we 
have looked at the pro cathedral or at Cardinal Yaughan's 
bousef But then, the cardinal is not a member of the Senate, 
and he is not resident. 

The discussion by members of the senate was a fine illus- 
tration of the jjower of scholars to restrict argument. Every- 
body wished to welcome all Roman Catholics as fellow-students. 


National feeling and love of liberty moved the most conRerva- 
tive of the senate to give to every Englishman whatever ho 
asked, especially if it would forward his purpose. On the 
other hand, among both Conservatives and Liberals are men 
who feel that Romanism is not helpful and who recognize in 
it no special authority. However much they desired to wel- 
come Roman Catholics as students, they could not establish a 
Roman Catholic center for Roman Catholic purposes in their 

Again, there are the English Catholics. These hold them- 
selves bound by the lirst canon of Antioch, made ecumenical 
at Chalcedon, and as such forming pai*t of the universal code 
of the Catholic Church. In accordance with its principle^ 
they require any schismatic priests to seek rehabilitation from 
the lawful bishop of the diocese before exercising their office 
within his jurisdiction, and they can not forward the develop- 
ment of .any pseudo-jurisdiction lest they aid and abet 

But none of these reasons might influence debate. The 
senate knows nothing of religious preferences. This makes a 
great debate at any meeting previous to a vote more solid in 
conclusions from fact. It also makes the translations of con- 
clusions into actions variable. The senate in debate is objec- 
tive — very. The senate in action is subjective — somewhat. 

According to the debate, it appeared that the hostel in 
question made a dangerous precedent for sectarian education. 
The privilege could not be restricted to the Roman Catholics 
without injustice to other bodies — the Jews, for instance. 
Thus might the university become a godless republic, encir- 
cled by a ring of righteous monarchies. Controversy on " the 
known" would binder pursuit of the unknown. Religions 
controversy, by its nature, must touch the individual. That 
is contrary to the spirit of the test act. Besides, to remove a 
test from every college, as was done twenty-five years ago, and 
then to establish institutions below colleges, and below in 
self-government, with tests is inc^onsistent. The ^^ grace" 
would authorize the use of associated residence, a Cambridge 
mark, in favor of any creed founding its exclusive hostel. A 
change in the character of Cambridge residence must involve 
change in the value of the Cambridge degree. As evidence 
of the power of some sectarian education to impede the func- 


tion of tbe university, a keen opponent read the circular 
letter sent by their bishop to those Roman Catholics whose 
sons were to become students at the universities. 

It IB ordered that there be established, for the benefit of young Catholic 
residents at Oxford and Cambridge, regular courses of lectures or confer- 
ences by Catholic professors, in which philology, history, and religion 
shall be treated with such amplitude and solidity as to furnish effectual 
protection against public and erroneous teaching. Attendance at these 
lectures is regarded by the Holy See as carrying with it by its own nature 
a grave obligation, and every Catholic undergraduate is bound to attend 
the course of lectures with sufficient frequency to render them a real safe- 
guard against rationalistic t-eaching and the spirit of indifferentism. 

A lay Boman Catholic member of the senate kindly became 
commentator on the letter, a necessary service to the English- 
men of the meeting, since the letter did not mean what it said. 
The commentator << well understood the reasqns for the wish 
expressed" in the text, <'but it did not mean that these young 
men were not to bring an open, candid mind to bear on such 
investigations as their studies might require. It merely meant 
that for them there existed a religious authority." Usually in 
both England and Eome <Mt is ordered" means it is com- 
manded, not it is wished. It was this unfortunate sense of 
control that led to even plainer speech between various Eng- 
lish kings and the bishop of Rome, from the interchange of 
courtesies between Norman William and Gregory onward. 
Perhaps when even the astute mind of Henry Plantagenet 
and tbe legal sense of England^s royal Justinian failed to un- 
derstand, the Cambridge senate may be pardoned slowness of 
comprehension. Besides, by its sacred economics, it was 
wicked waste to bring ^< authority" within the precincts for 
naught. What is it forf Why has it got that namef 

Again, it seemed that the provisions, however satisfactory 
in character, were no safeguard, since they came from a gov- 
erning body incompetent to permanent control; alien to the 

Nor were the dangers from sectarian education felt to be all. 
The '^ grace " to St. Edmunds's house appeared to some the 
^' grace" to one profession to establish its hostel for technical 
training. One wonders why should not an enthusiastic labor 
leader urge that a royal commission force the senate to its log- 
ical sequence in a procession of trades hostels. In any case 
the ''grace" was a ''grace" to one profession to educate its 


ni€ii apart. The recognition of such an institution introduces 
the seniinariBt idea, one incompatible with that of the univer- 
sity. Cambridge education means that all men shall meet in 
common, shall rub down angles, shall go out from their uni- 
versity in touch with their fellow-men. According to the Cam- 
bridge idea, secular priests educated by the seminary plan are 
unfitted for afterwork. Their seclusion narrows them and 
unfits them for contact with the laity. They will have been 
at the university, but not of the university. Yet they wish to 
wear its degree. 

Doubtless the plan gives to the students in question better 
lectures than they would otherwise have. It is less trying to 
the liberal Eomau Catholics than the present plan for their 
secular priests which does not appear quite efficient in an 
age when religion demands the consecration of the intellect. 
It is less baneful to Ultramontane Romanists than complete 
university education would be. Nevertheless it ties the Cam- 
bridge degree to a seminary. 

There were some rather negative i*oasons for recognition. 
Because of what the proposal did not do it was to be accepted. 
Because it did not fail to fulfill the letter of the ordinance it 
was not to be rejected. It was reasonably urged that it was 
for the good of the men and for the good of the nation that 
all men come to the university. So it ha<l proved with the 
Nonconformists. The difference is that the latter did come to 
be of the university. 

The test act proved slightly flexible. Since by this it was 
decided that great institutions like the colleges ought not to 
be brotherhoods for one community, the colleges were thrown 
open. The act determined the university aA national. Every 
sectarian college diminishes that character, and therefore. vio- 
lates the spirit of the act. On the other hand, the act did not 
say that no restricted college might be founded. Since it left 
the Church of England service established in some of the 
colleges, it does not prohibit some religious service in colleges 
within the university. But the immediate question is not one 
of prayers. 

The strongest reason for the recognition of all sectarian 
hostels is very strong. Liberty is to Cambridge as the breath 
of life. Is it, then, ]>ossible for her to shut out so great a force 
in life as is religion! If not, can she prevent the association 
of men of like belief? This, however, does not involve asso- 



ciatiou of those who are i)reparing for one special work in 
life, nor association subject to exterior control incompetent to 

In the debate but four men opposed the " grace." But their 
arguments were not answered. Their final words were: 

Tlio ideal univoreity slioiild opou its doors to all studeuts. But it would 
bo a mistake to recognize a special institution on conditions which will 
throw the student character of its members into the backj^rouud. It 
Boenieil that these men did not come to tho university to investigate the 
great questions of life, but rather as pledged to a couclusiouy and under 
authorities of whom all that was known was that their spirit was opposed 
to that free investigation which was the life of the university. They 
might come if they would, and w<4*e welcome to use the teaching given 
here, but it was another thing to ask for formal recognition when they 
professedly disbelieved in freedom of investigation. . 

But arc there no reasons for which the university might 
grant an exceptional recognition, especially if differently 
guarded! The petition is for responsible beings who have 
fully chosen a mode of life and for whom it is claimed that 
this isolation is imperative. A warm advocate for recognition 
ventured to hope, early in the debate, that before its close some 
statement might bo made as to the view taken by the Komaii 
Catholic hierarchy. The hope proved vain. Finally another 
member put the following question to the master-elect of St. 

Why might not the permission to become members of the. existing col- 
leges at Cambridge, now allowed (by Roman Catholic authorities) to 
Roman Catholic students, be extended to thc»se being educated for the 
secular priesthootl 7 

The reply was: 

(a) If tho students in question did not come up to some such institu- 
tion as that proposed they would not come at nil. (/>) The biBho])H would 
not let them, (c) It was the way they did at Honii and Paris, (d) It 
could not be said that the plan would be in any way inefficimt for them, 
for unless it were adopted these men would not have any university edu- 
cation at all. 

The reply did not answer, so a persistent member repeated 
the question. . The second reply, as to why these men might 
not join the college, was — 

(a) That they had lived apart for three hundred years ; (b) that a stricter 
discipline was enforced, to which it would bo unreasonable to expect that 
lay students shonld submit. 

A third time of asliing might have elucidated a wherefore 
more supporting to the ^' grace." Any such helpful stroke 


vas parried by the blow of a friend, which drilled in the propo- 
sition irrelevant to the question asked and affirmed two others 
to be quite clear: (a) That several provincial synods of the 
communion of the petitioners had affirmed the principle; (b) 
that on other principles they might not be let come. 

The meeting had learned the cause rather than the rea>on 
for tbe exclusion of these students from the privileges of the 
university, and, not being responsible, adjourned. 

To an historical student the statement on discipline is puz- 
zling; for, first, the idea discipline, be it of body, mind, or 
spirit, is not foreign to Cambridge, as witness many of her 
sons. That the technique is not obvious is true. English dis- 
cipline, bodily and spiritual, is like English law, voluntary 
and difficult of finding out. Second, we are told it would be 
unreasonable to expect other lioraan Catholic students to sub- 
mit to the special discipline in question. But the laity did 
submit to it, or else they managed under the one roof without 
submitting, for there was no such isolation for undergraduates 
until modern times. Nor can it be that any class of men able 
to prepare worthily for a high calling in the midst of a medi- 
leval town and university life should Und that life in the nine- 
teenth century too contaminating. Third, we are told that 
these students in certain universities have had a house to 
themselves for three hundred years. This may show the cus- 
tom no anachronism. The development of the renaissance in 
England, the Council of Trent, the housing of the Roman 
Catholic priests, come within the same one hundred years. 
But coincidence is not always satisfactory. Moreover, a house 
apart is not necessarily a public hostel. A private hostel nmy 
be most rigorously apart and adapted to any code of disci- 
pline. The public hostel gains in status and prestige by its 
near approach to a college, but not in opportunities for disci- 
pline. And status and prestige are no part of any religion. If 
the dominant motive of 8t. Edmund's bo promotion of knowl- 
edge and not gain of status, surely that is possible in the 
present status of these students as noncollegiate or in a private 

Finally, it is urged that the desire of the students in ques- 
tion — at present eight — to be educated in such a hostel as St. 
Edmund's House proposes to establish should decide the ques- 
tion, even if the senate or many of its members consider these 
undergraduates to be mistaken. This surpasses in cold argu- 



ment ( t) the impulsive action of last spring. It was novel to 
see the power of undergradnate opinion in the degrees for 
women and its extraordinary crudity of expression. Still it 
did represent the majority of undergradnate Cambridge, anil, 
as matter of fact, the university does belong to them next to 
the senate. If, in method of warfare, MacGregor sometimes 
forgot what was due his own heath, why, MacGregor missed 
an opportunity to honor his traditions. But nobody could 
question that he was MacGregor and that he was on his own 
heath. Kow, it appears to be a question of eight noncollegiate 
students having right to determine an important step of the 
university by the sum of their eight desires. In the words of 
a fiy sheet issued by certain members of the senate: 

Such an argument reduces the whole constitution of the university to 
an al>snrdity. The university is responsible for all its members in stain 
pupiUari, and the responsibility necessarily involves control. If we are 
too modest to exercise the control we ought to be too conscientious to 
accept the responsibility. 






By .John Maktin Vincknt. 

The intention of this paper is to bring forward only a single 
phase in the history of mnnicipal government and to draw the 
illastrations chiefly from a single city. It is, in fact, a study 
of the first constitution of Strassburg; but this is a document 
which has the further distinction of being the oldest municipal 
code in the history of Germany. 

The original compilers of these statutes left no data re8X)ect- 
iug the time of their enactment, but modern editors have 
shown reasonable grounds for believing that the first half of 
the twelfth century was the period. The contents show that 
the time was previous to the introduction of self-government, 
and thus the code may serve as a typical illustration of city 
life under the feudal system. 

Strassburg, however, was not a creation of this time. A 
long history already lay behind it. As the Eoman colony of 
Argentoratum it was marked as a place of importance, and as 
the Argentina of the Middle Ages it was highly esteemed by 
German kings and emperors. Although Strassburg to-day 
has an extremely mediaeval aspect, we must picture to our- 
selves a still older town. Seated on a river-bound island, like 
the cit^ of Paris, it had not yet fully occupied even that space, 
which is now simply one section of the center of the city. 
There was a so-ci^Jled *'old city" in the corner of the island, 
and the suburbs of this had grown up and been fortified into 
the "new city," but both parts were governed as one. 

Here a population probably less than 10,000 lived in houses 
even more picturesque than you find there now. It was too 
soon to look for tile roofs with audacious gables, surmounted 
by tall chimneys and guarded by tali storks. The storks may 
have been there, but doubt miglit be thrown upon that state- 
ment, for the time is rather early for chimneys. Probably 



timbered houses with thatched roofs were interspersed with a 
few churches, but no mighty cathedral dominated the land- 
scape. Although there was such a building, it was smaller 
and of such a character that the chroniclers periodically 
reported ^' combustum est ministerium Argentinensis." 

Over this water- bound plexus of walls, moats, houses, streets, 
gardens, and plowed fields, there stood an authority whose 
presence was daily evident and whoso power was acknowledged. 
This was the bishop of the diocese of Strassburg. From time 
immemorial these ecclesiastics had retained the feudal tenure 
of this i)rovince, for a charter of 982 simply reaffirms this 
privilege because it had been granted by earlier kings and 

Consequently we are prepared to find in the code before us 
that the person to whom ^^all magistrates in this city look for 
power" is still the bishop. Visible evidence of his presence 
was the episcopal palace wIiIqIi stood in the old city, on the 
site of tlie ducal i)alace now occupied by the University of 
Strassburg. On one side this faced thex)ablic street, and was 
accessible to the come and go of public business, while to the 
rear the bishop's garden extended to the river Brilsch. All 
along the ancient wall of the city at the side of this garden 
ran for many blocks the bishop's sUibles. 

It wiis indeed an establishment of distinction. Vicar of the 
Pope and ecclesiastical lord of a diocese, the bishop was at the 
same time an imperial viceroy, as it were, and feudal prince. 
In all of these capiu:ities he was a poweiful land owner, and 
commanded large services and revenues from territorial and 
clerical dependents. Consequently it is not always clear in 
the code before us upon what ground certain dues are based, 
whether feudal or municipal. It is evident, however, that the 
puri)ose of the law was to nnvke sure that all of the bishop's 
rights were nmintained. 

So gre^it was the feudal establishment of the bishop tliat he 
was obliged to keep a body of officers who formed a miniature 
court about the episcopal throne, A vicedominus or vicar, a 
marshal, a butler, a cup bearer and a chamberlain performed 
the duties of such ministers, but as they were entirely distinct 
from the corps of officials provided for the city and only inci- 
dentally mentioned in connection with the revenues of the 
bishop we may pass them by for matters more strictly muni- 


The code beginB, like all good constitations, by laying down 
a few general principles. ^'Argentina," says the ancient record, 
^^is founded after the pattern of other cities in this respect, 
that every man, stranger as well as native, shall have i)eace 
in her at all times and from all persons." Consequently no 
one may lay violent hands upon a criminal who has sought 
refuge in the city, but shall await the due process of justice. 
Tet no one need expect to bring booty or stolen goods into 
the place without furnishing an explauation to anyone who 
may complain of him, nor to hold a captive there unless he 
bring him to the magistrates to keep for trial. 

For the administration of afiairs on this basis five chief 
officers were provided. These were the advocate (vogt), the 
causidicus (schultheiss), the burggraf, the thelonearius (or 
collector), and the master of the mint. These were all ap- 
pointed by the bishop. Nothing is said about elections except 
in the case of the advocate, who could not be placed in office 
*< without the consent of the clergy, the ministerials, and the 
citizens." No clew is given as to method of showing this 

The advocate was the immediate representative of the 
bishop in the administration of the higher degrees of justice. 
As ecclesiastics were forbidden the shedding of blood, the 
advocate was the man who received instead of the bishop the 
power to judge over life and death. Being thus clothed with 
royal authority, he in turn invested the four next inferior 
officials with power to judge of minor offenses. It was a 
deputy of the advocate who executed the sentences of death, 
the putting out of eyes, and other mutilations. The official 
courtesy to be observed in such matters was regulated with 
great nicety. We find that in cases of punishment by hang- 
ing the ordinary jailer of the city was expected to conduct the 
condemned to the place of execution, to bind his eyes ^ith a 
cloth, to erect the gallows, to place the ladder in position, and 
to lead the criminal to the foot of it, but at this point he 
obligingly retired and allowed the deputy advocate to place 
the victim on the ladder, to adjust the rope, and complete the 

The causidicus, or schultheiss, was more immediately con- 
nected with the government of the city. In appointing this 
official the bishop was not restricted in his choice except by 
the general rule that no public office except that of advocate 
HIBT 98—27 


should be given to any person outside of the ecclesiastical 
household or dependents. This is, in fact, the key to the situa- 
tion. It is the government of a town through feudal ininis- 
terials, tempered by a certain amount of popular consent. 

The schultheiss was the sole judge over larceny and minor 
breaches of the peace, and appointed two inferior magistrates 
called judges (judices), who settled cases of debt. He appointed 
also the city jailer and constables. We may estimate the size 
of the place somewhat by the fact that the whole police force 
consisted of the aforesaid prison keeper and three bailiffs, one 
for the inner and two for the outer city. 

Third in importance was the burggraf. His duties would 
in our day belong mostly to one branch of the x>olice depart* 
ment. For one thing, he was more or less a regulator of 
industry, for it was the burggraf who appointed the masters 
of the gilds. There were eleven of these at the time in Strass- 
burg, and they do not seem to have had even enough right of 
self-government to elect their own masters. If any of these 
were delinquent in duty or partial in management they could 
be cited before the burggraf. His court, like that of the advo- 
cate, was in the Episcopal palace, and if his mandate were not 
obeyed he could carry the case up to the bishop. 

As inspector of buildings the burggraf must see to it that 
new houses or shops did not encroach upon the streets, for 
which trespass a heavy fine was established, as well as for 
injury to the fortifications. For bridges the burggraf and col- 
lector were personally resi>onsible, in the old and new town, 
respectively. Bridges must be built, in the first place, strong 
enough to bear wagons and oxen, ^<but if by reason of old age 
or too much use," one of them broke down and caused injury 
to a passenger, the above-named officers had to i>ay the 

The burggraf had also a voice in the erection of flour mills. 
If anyone wished to start such an industry, it did not lie with 
himself to decide whether business would warrant the enter- 
prise, but he must first obtain the consent of the populace and 
then the license of the burggraf. Having gained both, he may 
proceed to build, after tipping that official with a coin of gold. 
In this article and in one other place there seems to be a 
certain amount of choice assigned to the x>eople, but nowhere 
are there any indications as to how that should be expressed. 
Not till the next century was Strassburg enabled to eiyoy the 
blessings of a city council. 


In a mediaBval market town like this tolls and taxes were 
among the prominent features of life. In Strassburg it was 
laid down as a general principle in the law that all exchanges 
amonntiug to five of their shillings should be taxed. The toll 
on that sum was the i)enny, which was the small silver coin of 
the day, and consequently you- paid fourpence in the pound, 
or 1.6 per cent. Unfortunately, the prices of things are not 
given in the code, but one may figure out the value of an aver- 
age horse, since the tax on a sale of that kind was specifically 
fixed at fourpence, while the stamp duty on a mule was only 
a penny. 

The law particularly states that hens, geese, eggs, and a 
variety of other things were exempt from taxation unless the 
sale amounted to five solidi, so we may see that the ordinary 
market basket was safe from invasion. But there was the 
emissary of the bishop, who collected a tax on coal (probably 
charcoal in those days), and at another time the tithes of wine 
and tribute from a certain kind of bread. The burggraf had 
a tax upon swords and on a few natural products, so the pay- 
ments were doubtless frequent enough. Special favor, how- 
ever, was shown to members of the Episcopal establishment. 
Any man or woman attached to the familia ecclesia might sell 
anything which they had made or raised with their own hands 
free of duty. They might also purchase materials for their own 
use or manufacture, but if any one of these people was con- 
victed of selling what he had not made or buying to sell for 
gain, the penalty was the loss of a hand. 

The greater part of the tolls came into the hands of the 
thelonearius, or collector. He was also inspector of wet and 
dry measures, and had the custody of the standard quarts and 
pecks, which the master of the wine merchants furnished him. 
Private measures must be branded and private scales were 
allowed if obtaine<i at the mint. A delightful touch of sim- 
plicity is to be seen in the paragraph on this subject, where it 
is gravely stated in Latin that the collector is on no account to 
lend these officials measures '^ unless perchance he wanted to 
treat a fellow-citizen to an aman of wine, or a quartal of grain 
or some small thing like that without payment." 

Of the officials provided for in this code the foregoing are all 
that weshould consider as properly belonging to the government 
of a city. Yet in Strassburg and in other medisBval cities there 
was anotherfunctionary who had much to do with the economic 
and commercial situation. This was the master of the mint. The 


bishop was the holder of the coiniug privilege, but appointed 
a magister monetae to superintend the practical side. 

A large part of the cod^ is taken up with regulations for the 
mint, but I call attention only to the immense influence which 
the bishop might have oh the welfare of his citizens. He had 
the right to call in the coin whenever he pleased, provided 
notice was given during six weeks at intervals of a fortnight. 
After that there was a heavy fine, and even the punishment of 
hand cutting, for passing the condemned coin. 

Occasionally this was necessary on account of counterfeits, 
but frequently the object was to gather in the fees for recoin- 
age, which varied from 1 to 8 per cent. The possibilities are 
shown in the history of Braunsweig. There the coin was 
apparently called in about once a year only, but the price of 
silver varied on tbis account every month. At the time of the 
new issue you paid at tbe mint 16 of the old denarii for 12 of 
the new. Six months later they were at par. At the end of 
the year, just before the new issue, 12 were worth only 9. Con- 
sequently the price of merchandise increased every quarter 
till the greatest confusion arose. In 1284 the citizens of 
Braunsweig were obliged to pay their ecclesiastical lord a 
large sum of money to stop calling in the coin. 

We can easily picture to ourselves the primitive mint in 
Strassburg, which the code places next to the fish market. A 
group of men with rude dies and hammers are striking oft' sil- 
ver pennies, one at a time, while others are shearing blanks or 
cutting new patterns. The whole thing flashes out of a single 
clause in the law which ordains that all coins shall be struck 
in the same house, so that the artisans can see each other's 
work. Only a little study of early German coins convinces 
one of the wisdom of any measure which might improve the 
looks of the money. 

Attention has already been called to some of the general 
ordinances regulating public works, the control of the streets, 
the building of mills, and the preservation of the walls and 
moats. The sanitary measures were few, but striking from a 
modern point of view. No one was allowed to throw filth in 
the street before his house unless he expected to take it away 
immediately. Public places were provided where such mat- 
ters must be deposited, to wit: ^< Beside the meat stalls, beside 
St. Stephen's Church, by the well in the horse market, and at 
the place called the Dump." * As to the matter of swine, the 

* Oerwirke, aeotlon 82. 


place was iu advance of some towns seven centuries yonoger, 
since no citizen was allowed to keep such pets unless he gave 
them into the charge of a swineherd who should pasture them 
in a certain field outside the gates. 

We may doubt whether the theory of city government was 
very carefally wrought out in Strasburg in the twelfth cen- 
tury, but certain priuciples are quite clear. The tendency in 
our day is to place great x)ower and responsibility in the hands 
of the mayor. You will have noted that there is no doubt as 
to who has the appointing power in Strasburg. The bishop 
appoints the chief functionaries and they appoint their subor- 
dinates. The consent of the clergy and citizens seems to be 
necessary only in case of the advocate. The salaries consist 
of a part of the fees and fines, and tenure of ofiice appears to 
be for life. 

No mention is mad6 of a town council or board of aldermen, 
either elective or hereditary. The bishops would not be anx- 
ious to divide their power with persons whom they might con- 
trol completely, for the law expressly provided that no one 
should judge over the city except the Emperor, the bishop, 
and those whom the latter appointed. 

The bishop was responsible to the Emperor only in the 
feudal sense, and emperors visited the city at infrequeut 
periods. So the bishop was practically responsible only to his 
Creator, and that court of last resort was also remote. It was 
not till the beginniug of the thirteenth century that the Em- 
peror responded to the petition of the citizens and, in spite of 
the opposition of the bishop, granted them the right to have 
a common council. 

We may note again in passing that under the old regime 
franchises were granted by popular vote — if you take the mill- 
ing privilege as an example — and that for them a payment was 
made to the chief of police; but the law said he might have it. 

The most curious features of Strasburgian civic duties have 
yet to be mentioned. That is to say, they seem curious from 
the modern standpoint, but were quite matter-of-fact in the 
twelfth century. A certain amount of personal service was 
required of every class of citizens, if not of every individual. 
The obligations of the various trades form a large portion of 
the code, and specifications are given with much detail. In 
most cases it seems that each craft, as a whole, was taxed a 
certain number of its articles of manufacture, and after that 
was obliged to make as many more as the bishop wanted, but 


with his material or at his expense, or they were to famish a 
fixed number of men to do such work as he desired. 

Contributions were increased on the occasions when the 
bishop journeyed to the imperial court, or joined in expeditions 
of war. These were looked upon as public occasions, and we 
may regard the extra duties as the repartition of taxation 
among feudal dependents. 

For instance, the merchants were obliged to furnish every 
year twenty-four men from their number, who should under- 
take the negotiations of the .bishop within his diocese. They 
traveled at the expense of the ecclesiastical court, and in case 
of injury to themselves or property while absent might claim 
reimbursement. These men formed a most highly honored 
class of public servants, for the law expressly provided that 
whenever the bishop gave any festivities to which the vassals 
were gathered together, these legates or negotiators should be 
given prominent seats, so tliat they might be better known to 
the men of the province. 

Of the furriers, twelve men were to be furnished who were 
to make all the articles necessary for the episcopal household, 
and if there were not hides enough in Strasburg tlie master 
of the guild should go to Mainz or Strasburg and buy with the 
bishop's money. 

The blacksmiths were made particularly useful, since not a 
certain number, but the whole class, was laid under contribu- 
tion. When the bishop went out to war he demanded four 
horseshoes with their nails from every smith, and for a journey 
to court two from each. If this prelate besieged a castle or 
was besieged in one, the whole smithcraft was obliged to make 
up a purse of three hundred arrows and be ready to forge as 
many more as were needed. Their ordinary duties were to 
provide the palace with all necessary ironwork, being furnished 
at such times with material and board. They must also make 
the locks and chains for the city gates, but these at the public 

This, by the way, is the only article in the code which makes 
use of the term "public funds.'' In other cases responsibility 
is laid upon individual officials, as if it were a personal matter. 
But we may well suppose that the burggraf, since he had 
charge of the walls, would look after the locks on the gates. 
The citizens may have appreciated that he was using their 
money, even if the burggraf himself was not nice on such i>ointB. 


Shoemakers and glovers were also obliged to famish work- 
men at the bishop's expense, and on special occasions contrib- 
nte goods. The saddlers gave two saddles for a court journey, 
and made more if requested and paid for. Such occasions 
laid upon the sword polishers the duty of brightening the 
arms and helmets of the bishop's chief ministers and attend- 
ants, and if necessary they must furbish up the hunting outfit 
which his reverence used in the chase. 

The makers of wooden dishes furnished only what they were 
paid for, but they must keep the episcopal family supplied. 
They must have had steady employment, for the master cooper 
was enjoined to keep them iu daily wood. 

The coopers likewise worked only for pay. The chief cooper 
saw to it that wood was supplied, the bishop's cellar master 
furnished the hoops, and the undercoopers kept things tight. 

So many regulations for the household supply do not neces- 
sarily show fear of stnkes, but should probably be ascribed to 
the bishop's feudal rights. His claim came first as a sort of 
banality, and is minutefy laid down to prevent misunder- 

In the passage relating to tapsters a most ancient and hon- 
orable precedent is found for the use of the first day of the 
week for cleaning up. The above-named guild were obliged to 
appear every Monday morning at the palace and to sweep out 
the granary and outhouse, if so desired. 

When the bishop traveled by water it fell to the fishermen 
and millers to furnish the oarsmeu. The collector provided 
the boats and the watermen the oars. They received pay for 
their services, but were compelled to go anywhere between 
certain points up and down the river. They could not take 
advantage of their lord on such an occasion and threaten to 
put him out at some disagreeable place. The bishop must be 
returned safely to the lauding at the episcopal orchard. The 
fishermen, furthermore, were obliged to spend three days and 
three nights each year in fishing for the bishop. 

The regulations for the artisans close with the article upon 
carpenters. These useful citizens were required to appear 
before the palace every Monday morning at daybreak and 
remain there till the bell should ring for early mass. If within 
this time they were not taken into the employ of the bishop 
they might consider themselves free to work elsewhere that 
day. Ko one but the bishop could thus compel them to go 
into service. 


Besides the labor taxation above cdnsidered there was a 
tribute of work due firom the inhabitants in general. With 
exception of a specified number from the trades^ or in some 
cases excepting whole classes of artisans, every citizen was 
expected to labor five days a year upon the episcopal home 
estate. This lay apparently within the bounds of the city, 
and the corv^ did not draw the people far from home. 

Certain ofQcials were obliged to contribute to the expense 
of cultivation. The schuldheiss (mayor), for instance, should 
furnish thirteen plow oxen, which he should appropriate from 
the estates of episcopal vassals deceased. He gave also one 
horse to be ridden by the head farmer and to be used for car- 
rying seed to the field. Plows and harrows were given by 
the head farmer. 

In spring and fall the people all turned out, and we may 
imagine that the occasions were more or less picnics, for which 
the town officers and the bishops furnished the eatables. At 
harvest time the judges, in connection with the bishop's ser- 
vants, formed a committee on storage, and as a reward each 
received a malter, or about 12 bushels, at thrashing time. 

Among regulations so minute as these it should not seem 
strange that the- oxen, so important in the farm economy, 
should live and, in fact, die according to Latin statutes of 
their own. Article 100 declares that the schuldheiss (mayor) 
should not put them to any use, unless perhaps to cultivate 
his own small field, nor should the bishop himself use them 
for any other purpose than plowing. **And if," says article 
101, with mournful precision, ''from among these cattle one 
or two or more, on account of old age or for any other reason 
except contagious disease, become unfit for farm work, the 
butchers shall place their flesh on sale and give the money to 
the schuldheiss, and in the meantime no other meat shall be 

Thus we catch a glimpse of the daily existence of a busy 
community just before it entered into the most flourishing 
period of its mediteval life. We find a municipal life in which 
the duties are decidedly complex and not altogether easy to 
classify. We observe, however, that the complexity is due to 
the threefold position of the owner of the palace, as ecclesias- 
tic, imperial governor, and feudal baron, so that the taxpayer 
was compelled to render unto OsBsar the things which belonged 
to the bishop. It was a period when rents and public dues 

jiunicipal government in twelfth century. 425 

were paid sometimes in money, sometimes in services, and so 
tbis code provides a variety of ways in which church tithes, 
city defense, and manorial quitrents may be rendered in cash 
or in kind. 

That the ordinary citizen, or possibly even the bishop, was 
conscious of all these distinctions may perhaps be too much 
to infer. The services so overlapped one another that probably 
the most that the merchant or carpenter thought about it was 
that the great man in the palace, on your right as you entered 
the south gate of the old city, was the person to whom all the 
reverence and about all the taxes were due. 

Whether the burdens here imposed on the people were hard 
to bear would be difficult to decide. Whether it was a hard- 
ship to be compelled, as the artisans were, to work for pay 
would depend on the kind of a paymaster the bishop proved 
to be. We do know that later on frequent strife arose, and 
repeated appeals were carried to the Emperor, till the citizens 
were finally given a voice in the government of the city. 



Preliminary work of the committee 430 

Value of hifltoriosil Htudy 437 

Continuity of historical study and the relation of history to other 

sabjeots 443 

Four years' course, ronHistin^ of four blocks or periods 446 

Why no short course in general history is recommend^ 451 

How the different blocks or periods may be treated 456 

I. Ancient history 456 

II. Mediasval and modem European history 450 

III. English history 463 

IV. American history 467 

V. Civil government 471 

Methods of instruction 473 

Sources 4^1 

Intensive study 486 

The need of trained teachers 486 

College-entrance requirements 489 

Entrance examinations 496 

Appendix I. — The present condition of history teaching in American 

secondary schools 499 

Appendix II. — Study of history below the secondary school 511 

Appendix III. — History in the German gymnasia 519 

Appendix IV.— -History in French lyodes 533 

Appendix V. — History in English secondary schools 589 

Appendix VI. — History in Canadian secondary schools 551 

Appendix VII.— Some books and articles on the teaching of history . 556 

Appendix VIII. — Maps and atlases 500 




In the early winter of 1896 the committee making the fol- 
lowing report was appointed by the American Historical 
Association to consider the subject of history in the secondary 
schools and to draw up a scheme of college-entrance require- 
ments in history. Since that time we have held five meetings, 
each lasting several days; at each of these meetings all the 
members of the committee have been present, except that Pro- 
fessor Salmon was absent in Europe during the last two. 
Every question involving doubt has been carefully, thoroughly, 
and systematically discussed, and in the conclusions here 
presented all the members concur. 

Of the seven i^ersons composing the committee only one is 
a teacher in a secondary school; three others, however, have 
been secondary school teachers, while others have been 
interested for years in the general problems under considera- 
tion. Although we felt that we had at the beginning some 
knowledge of the situation, and knew of the difficulties and 
limitations as well as of the accomplishments of the schools, 
it seemed necessary to make a careful study of the whole ques- 
tion and to gather information concerning the conditions and 
the tendencies of historical instruction. We have endeavored, 
in the light of the actual facts, to prepare a report that may 
be useful and suggestive to teachers of history and that may 
furnish to superintendents and principals some assistance in 
the task of framing programmes and in determining methods 
of work. We have sought to be helpful rather than merely 
critical or depreciatory, and have tried to consider the whole 
field in a broad and general way, remembering that we were 
making suggestions and recommendations, not for the schools 
of one section or of one kind, but for the schools of the nation. 




History, as a secondary stady, now demands serious atten- 
tion. The report of the National Commissioner of Education 
for 1896-97 shows that there were at that time 186,581 pupils 
in the secondary schools studying history (other than United 
States history). No statistics have been collected to show the 
number studying the history and government of the United 
States; but there is good ground for saying that, if such stu- 
dents were taken into account, the number of history pupils 
would be found to exceed 200,000, and would perhaps equal 
if not exceed in number those engaged in the study of any 
other subject save algebra. According to the statistics of the 
Bureau of Education the number of pupils studying history 
(other than United States history) has increased 152 i)er cent 
in the last ten years, a rate of increase below that of only one 
subject in the curriculum. These simple facts seem to make 
it plain that college-entrance requirements, that are properly 
based upon the work and tendencies of the secondary schools^ 
should include a liberal amount of history among the pre- 
scribed and optional studies. 

An investigation of the subject of history, as it is studied 
and taught in the secondary schools, presents many difficulties. 
Even before the committee began seriously to consider what 
work was to be done, it became apparent that only a thorough 
study would be profitable, that general conclusions or recom- 
mendations, even on such a question as that of college entrance 
requirements, could not be made without an examination of 
the whole field and a consideration of many fundamental prin- 
ciples or without ascertaining what was doing in the high 
schools and academies of the country. 

Before this work was undertaken there had not been any 
systematic attempt of this kind; nor had there been any pro> 
longed effort by any national association to present the claims 
of history, or to set before the schoolmen a statement of what 
might be considered the value of historical study and the 
place which it should occupy in the school programme. We 
do not leave out of consideration the work of the Committee 
of Ten, nor do we underestimate the value or the effect of the 
able and highly interesting report of the Madison Oonference 
on History, Civil Government, and Economics;' and we do 

> This oonference wm held in Decern bor, 1892; its conclusions form » part of the report 
of the Committee of Ten, published by the Bureau of Education in 1603, and reprinted hj 
the Aineric»n Book Company, Kew Yorkt 1894. 


Boc .ose sight of the fact that historical iDstruction in the 
secondary schools had often been discussed in pedagogical con- 
ferences and teachers' associations. Before we began our 
work it was plain that there was an awakening interest in* 
this whole subject, and the time seemed to be at hand when a 
systematic effort would meet with response and produce results. 
But in spite of all that had been done, and in spite of this 
awakened interest, there was no recognized consensus of opin- 
ion in the country at large, not one generally accepted judg- 
ment, not even one well-known point of agreement, which 
would serve as a beginning for a consideration of the place of 
history in the high-scliool curriculum. Buch a statement can 
not be made concerning any other subject commonly taught in 
the secondary schools. The task of the committee was, there- 
fore, to discover the actual situation, to see what was doing 
and what was the prevailing sentiment, to localize and estab- 
lish a modicum of practices and principles, however small and 
limited it might be; and, having apprehended what was best 
and most helpful in spirit and tendency among teachers of the 
country, to seek to give that spirit expression in a report that 
would be helpful and suggestive, and that would be of service 
in widening the Aeld of agreement and in laying the founda- 
tions for a common understanding. 

In all of our work we have endeavored not only to discover 
any agreement or common understanding that may exist 
among American teachers, but to keep in mind the fact that 
local conditions and environments vary exceedingly ; that what 
may be expected of a large and well-equipped school need not 
be exi)ected of a small one, and that large preparatory schools 
and academies, some of them intentionally fitting boys for one 
or two universities, are in a situation quite unlike that in 
which the great majority of high schools are compelled to 
work. We have sought chiefly to discuss, in an argumenta- 
tive way, the general subject submitted for consideration ; to 
offer suggestions as to methods of historical teaching and as 
to the place of history on the school programme, being fully 
aware that, when all is said and done, only so much will be 
adopted as appeals to the sense and judgment of the second- 
ary teachers and superintendents, and that any rigid list of 
requirements or any body of peremptory demands, however 
judiciously framed, not only would but should be disregarded 
in schools whose local conditions make it unwise to accept 


Hie committee determined that every reasonable means 
should be ased to ascertain the present condition of historical 
stady. Several hundred circulars asking for information were 
sent out to schools in all parts of the United States, selected 
not because they were supposed to be exceptionally good or 
exceptionally bad or unusually strong in historical work, but 
because they were recommended to the committee by compe- 
tent authority as typical schools. Circulars were sent to dif- 
ferent kinds of schools — to those in small towns as well as to 
those in large cities, and to private academies as well as to 
public high schools. About 250 replies have been received, 
and the information thus gathered is presented and discussed 
in Appendix I to this report. 

But to seek information through printed interrogatories is 
always somewhat unsatisfactory, and the committee therefore 
used other means also. Steps were taken to secure full discus- 
sions in the different educational associations of the country, 
in order that many teachers might become interested in the 
work of the committee and give needful information, and in 
order that there might be a free interchange of opinion on 
some of the more imi)ortant problems that called for solution. 
Discussions on some portions of our report have been held by 
the New England History Teachers' Association, the Associ- 
ation of Colleges and Preparatory Schools of the Middle States 
and Maryland, the Michigan Schoolmasters' Club, the Bound 
Table in History of the National Educational Association, and 
by other educational bodies, as well as at two meetings of the 
American Historical Association. Moreover, at various times 
in the course of the past two years different members of the 
committee have personally consulted teachers and talked the 
subject over with them. These efforts seem to demonstrate 
that we have not reached conclusions hastily, and that our 
report is not merely the expression of the theoretical aspira- 
tions of college professors who are unacquainted with the con- 
ditions of the secondary schools. It is, in a very proper sense, 
the result of careful examination and systematic inquiry con- 
cerning the secondary conditions of the country. 

It is not necessary to review here, in detail, the conclusions 
reached from a study of the circulars received from the schools. 
It will be seen by an examination of these conclusions, as pre- 
sented in the Appendix, that in regard to many matters on 
which we sought information there is little or no agreement 


Conceming the amount of history offered, the fields of history 
studied, the order in which the different fields are taken up, 
and the years in which the subject is taught, there is much 
diversity of practice; but, on the other hand, we find marked 
approach to uniformity in one particular, namely, that good 
schools in all parts of the United States have adopted sub- 
stantially similar methods of instruction. It is perfectly plain 
that the old rote system is going by the board. Practically 
every school now reports the use of material outside the text- 
book, and recognizes that a library is necessary for efficient 
work; and nearly all teachers assign topics for investigation 
by the pupil, or give written recitations, or adopt like means 
of aronsing the pupil's interest and of leading him to think 
and work in some measure independently, in order that he 
may acquire power as well ats information.* Of course these 
methods are more extensively developed in some schools than 
in others; but the facts point to a common understanding, or 
at least to the approach toward a common understanding, of 
what history teaching should be, and to a growing appreciation 
of what historical study can do. We venture to say that if a 
school Las well-trained teachers, who know why they teach 
and how to teach, the order of historical studies, or the exact 
method of handling a field of historical inquiry, is compara- 
tively unimportant; and it is this evidence of a realization 
that history has a value as a pedagogical subject, indicating 
as it does a new interest on the part of teachers and directors 
of schools, and bringing surely in its train a demand for skill- 
fhl teachers, which should give courage and hope to those who 
are interested in the successful use of history as a means of 
discipline and culture. 

In mattersof detail, the conclusions that could be drawn from 
the replies to the circulurs were somewhat meager, but they 
were helpful in enabling the committee to judge of tendencies 
and to form a general opinion as to existing conditions. But, 
as we have already said, we have not contented ourselves with 
this method of ascertaining the situation. By the more per- 
sonal means adopted we have gained information which can 
not readily be tabulated, but which enables us to have some 
assurance concerning the tendencies of the time, and to feel 

* Uttdoabtedly the report of the Madison Conference bad a very beneficial influence in 
this direction, by calling the attention of the teachers of the country to what ideals of 
historical instmotion are. 

HIST 98—28 


that in many respects present conditioDS are not satisfactory 
to the active, progressive teachers of the country. It is often 
more valuable to find out how one highly successful teacher 
attains his end than how twenty unsuccessful teachers do not; 
and to discover what practical, experienced teachers, who have 
given thought to the subject, thiuk can be done and should 
be done, than to know the static condition of twenty others 
who are content with the semi-success or the failure of the 

In the summer of 1897 three members of the committee were 
studying educational problems in Europe. Miss Salmon spent 
the summer in Germany and German Switzerland, studying 
the methods of historical instruction in the secondary schools. 
The results of her investigations were given in a paper read 
before the American Historical Association in December, 1897. 
Mr. Haskins has at different times studied the educational 
system of France; after a further examination of secondary 
conditions in 1897, he prepared a report on the subject of his- 
tory teaching in that country. Mr. Fox has a thorough ac- 
quaintance with the English public schools, and has prei>ared 
a report on the teaching of history in the secondary schools of 
England. These articles on the conditions of historical in- 
struction in European countries are given as api)endices to 
this report. They are not offered as furnishing us models to 
which we ought to conform, but as investigations in the study 
of comparative education ; they may, however, give to teachers 
of this country suggestions on the subject of general pedagog- 
ical values, methods of historical instruction, and the arrange- 
ment of studies. The committee has not supposed that it is 
possible to import a foreign-made regime i/o which the Ameri- 
can schools can be asked to* adapt themselves. 

It will be seen that of foreign countries Germany is the 
one that offers to America the most lessons, of which proba- 
bly the most important is that suggested by the great advan- 
tage resulting from having the subject of history, as well as 
other subjects, in the hands of thoroughly equipped teachers, 
who have received instruction in method and are versed in 
the art of imparting information with due regard to the pupil's 
age and degree of mental advancement. In the German 
gymnasia the course of history, from Homeric times to the 
present day, is covered with great thoroughness and system. 
To this part of the report on the German schools we wish to 


call special atteutioD, for while we do not think that it is prof- 
itable for ua, even in this particular, to follow the German 
cnrriculam exactly, we believe that there should be an effort 
on the part of those who are organizing programmes to reach 
toward this ideal by extending the course of history over a 
number of years and by developing it in accordance with the 
psychological principles which have been adhered to in the 
preparation of the German course of study. It should be 
noticed, too, that in German schools history is correlated with 
other subjects. The teacher of history, where opportunity 
offers, makes urc of the foreign language which the pupils 
are studying, and the language teacher refers to historical 
facts. One subject in the curriculum thus helps to reenforce 
another. The methods of the German teachers also deserve 
careful consideration. Interest is aroused by skillful oral 
teaching, in which the teacher adapts his story to the minds 
and capacities of his hearers and so holds their attention that 
concentration of mind and ability to grasp the subject are 
developed. It must be confessed that Miss Salmon's descrip- 
tion of how a teacher in Bale, in the middle of a hot summer 
day, held the breathless attention of a class of boys for fifty 
minutes while he told the story of the dramatic struggle 
between Henry IV and Gregory VII, suggests not only phe- 
nomenal methods but unusual boys; but withal we must 
attribute the teacher's success to his skill and to the previous 
training which the boys had received in the lower grades, 
where inattention or heedlessness was not tolerated. 

Doubtless teachers of history in this country can not follow 
the example of German teachers in all respects. The German 
believes that until the boy reaches the university he has no 
judgment to be appealed to and no great reasoning faculty to 
be developed; that it is his business, until 18 or 19 years of 
age, to absorb, not to argue or discuss. Ho is not expected to 
ask questions; he is expected to do what he is told. Such, 
however, is not the system for making American citizens and 
such is not the atmosphere in which the American boy or girl 
should live. Nor can it be said that under our present condi- 
tions the teacher of history should attempt to give instruction 
to secondary pupils without the help of a text. 

The system and methods of instruction in the schools of 
France are interesting, but somewhat less suggestive than 
those of the German schools. There, as in Germany, history 


is in the hands of trained teachers, who have a capacity for 
holding the papil's attention, arousing interest, and develop- 
ing a love for hist(Sical study, as well as for giving a vast 
amount of historical information. The course of study is long, 
thorough, and systematically organized. The conditions of 
German Switzerland are essentially similar to those of Ger- 
many itself. 

The situation in England does not offer many valuable les- 
sons to American teachers. The most noticeable features are 
a lack of historical instruction, a common failure to recognize 
the value of history, and a certain incoherence and general 
confusion. We can not here discuss the reasons for these con- 
ditions. It is enough to say that the laissez faire idea has 
been carried farther and is more marked in England than in 
America; for, on the whole, we have an educational system, 
and each passing year shows an increase in the common stock 
of principles. And yet one who examines the condition of 
historical instruction in this country, and compares it with 
that of France and Germany, feels that Englishmen and Amer- 
icans are of one blood; the individualistic spirit of the races 
has found unusual expression in educational practices, and has 
made against cooperation and harmony, while instinctive aver- 
sion to theoretical arrangement has hindered the development 
of general principles. A comparison of English conditions 
with those of the continent will be likely to show the value of 
system and order, and the advantage resulting from the sway 
of good pedagogical doctrines. We must endeavor in America 
to reach a system of our own, and to recognize the force of 
sound principles, without losing sight of the fact that our 
local conditions are many, and that we must rely on individual 
initiative and enthusiasm, if not on impulse. ^N^evertheless, in 
spite of local diversity, and in spite of the fact that a rigid 
ri^gime seems on the whole impossible, if not undesirable, in 
this country, there are sound general principles that may be 
termed absolute rather than relative; there is a proper method 
of unfolding the subject, and there are improper methods; or, 
to speak more justly, method and system, which recognize the 
true character of the study and the principles by which it may 
be adapted to pupils of different ages, are certainly wiser and 
better than any haphazard method and lack of system can be. 

While it is impossible to transplant any foreign course of 
study to our schools, and unwise to imitate blindly European 



methods of iDstruction, there are at least two lessons that may 
be learned fh>m foreign schools, namely, the wisdom of demand- 
ing thoroughly trained teachers of history, and that of giving 
a large place to historical instruction in all courses. In both 
France and Germany, history is taught by special teachers, 
whose historical training has been carried to a point well 
beyond our American bachelor's degree, and whose pedagogical 
ability has been specially tested. In France, an hour and a 
half each week is given to history throughout the ten years of 
the elementary school and lycee; in Germany, history is pur- 
sued two or three hours weekly in every year of the nine years 
of the gymnasium ; and even in Eussia the time given to history 
is. much longer than in the average American school. Not 
merely on these grounds, however, do we ask larger recogni- 
tion for history; we hope to present, in the course of this 
report, substantial reasons for such recognition drawn from 
the nature of the subject and from its relations to the develop- 
ment of American boys and girls; but we call attention to 
what is now done, in other countries as evidence that our 
recommendations are not fanciful or revolutionary. 


It may seem to be unnecessary to consider the value of his- 
torical study in itself, or to show how history may be related 
to other subiects in the school curriculum. * As a matter of 
fact, however, the educational value of every other subject has 
received more attention than that of history; indeed, only 
within the last few years has there been anything like a 
thoughtful discussion by practical teachers of the worth of 
history as a disciplinary study. When so much has been said 
of the necessity